UK Libraries Protest Ridiculous Copyright Laws By Showing Empty Cases Of Works They Can't Display
from the take-a-stand dept
A bunch of libraries in the UK are protesting ridiculous copyright terms by displaying empty cases where they say letters written during World War I should go, but won't, because figuring out how to properly license the work under copyright law is impossible.
There would have been a letter from a First World War soldier in this displayThe #Catch2039 hashtag is full of similar images. Here are a few:
But because of current copyright laws, we cannot display the original in this instance.
Join the campaign to free our history. Many unpublished works remain in copyright until 2039, whatever their age.
Tweet a picture of this display with the hashtag #Catch2039
For information on the campaign visit www.cilip.org.uk/freeourhistory
This case should contain a #WW1 soldier's letter. B/c of UK copyright laws the letter cannot be displayed #catch2039 pic.twitter.com/U2L6I3SkAv
— Imperial War Museums (@I_W_M) October 29, 2014
Free our history reform #copyright #catch2039. Sign the petition http://t.co/5WuIxQU6SM pic.twitter.com/KZpKjkHXl3
— NKorn (@NKorn) October 29, 2014
Want to see this letter before 2039? Support our campaign to reform #copyright http://t.co/i14a2hZxE7 #catch2039 pic.twitter.com/HB0uQLAflt
— LUL Digital Library (@LULDigital) October 30, 2014
“During the First World War Centenary commemorations, many organisations want to make original unpublished works such as diaries and letters accessible to the public. Because they are still under copyright protection, they cannot do so without seeking permission from the rights holder. This is even more problematic if the rights holders are untraceable.Because, obviously, without the protections that copyrights grant, why would those soldiers ever have written letters in the first place, right?
We are asking everyone who cares about our history, everyone who cares about telling our collective story without restrictions, to join the campaign.”
It's stories like this that highlight why we find copyright law so problematic. Copyright law creates all sorts of these nonsensical restrictions that no one in their right mind thinks is appropriate. But because the law looks to protect such works for so long, you end up with results like this. A system that didn't automatically protect every work created, but rather required registration and formalities would go a long way towards solving basic problems like this -- and it's absolutely ridiculous that many consider that option to be a non-starter in any discussion of copyright reform.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, libraries, orphan works, uk, world war i
Companies: cilip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares if people can not learn anything about a major historical event, unless we lock everything up for 3 lifetimes corporations will have no motivation to acquire more things to lock away.
Copyright should exist, but nothing like what it is today.
A simple solution would be to require them to be registered and require a renewal be filed. Miss the renewal and in 6 months it is in the public domain. There should be limits so that things aren't locked away for several lifetimes. It should be required that the works be made available, so that they don't vanish into a vault.
What purpose is copyright serving when the content is no longer available to the public at any price? If it isn't worth enough to keep it in the marketplace, what harm is there of moving it to the public domain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If we were to update this period for the times considering the far more rapid rate of making copies, the far more rapid rate of distributing copies, and far more rapid rate at which people consume copyright-able content these days, copyright terms should last maybe 1 year at most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for the article, it would help immeasurably to have a link to the statutory provision of UK law that supposedly creates the issue being complained about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anything 1985 and older you should feel free to copy to your heart's content. The law is tyranny, bought and paid for by lobbyists. Especially given today's marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may wish to consider that even during the period that copyright pertains there is nothing that prevents persons from enjoying whatever it is that a work has to offer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except for works under copyright that are no longer being published, when it can be very difficult to impossible to find a copy. Many of the first films ever produced no longer exist because the studios failed to preserve a copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was not my point but I agree with this point as well.
"You may wish to consider that even during the period that copyright pertains there is nothing that prevents persons from enjoying whatever it is that a work has to offer."
The point of IP should not be to ensure that works are protected just for the sake of protecting them. This is a very bought and paid for view of copy protection laws that corporations have bought. It's not a view intended to serve the public interest.
If the work has no commercial value then there is no purpose of protecting it because that work is no longer providing anyone with the monetary incentive that was supposed to encourage them to create the work in the first place. and if the work is no longer being sold (why would it be if it has no commercial value) that limits the number of legal copies available and so now those without legal copies are prevented from enjoying it.
and 'commercial value' is sorta an ambiguous term. Many works have 'value'. Places may wish to commercialize that value. For instance a restaurant can 'commercialize' the value of a song or movie by playing it. This includes public domain works. The purpose of IP law should not be to withhold works until they have no more 'commercial' value. It should be to expand the public domain so that everyone can freely utilize the value of those works (be it commercially, personally, or otherwise).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copy protection terms (or even whether or not copy protection laws should exist in the first place) should depend on what the public democratically decides it should be. The problem is that they currently depend on the extent that various corporations and industry interests have bought and paid for politicians. That needs to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Immeasurably???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unpublished works go into the public domain after a certain period of time, which is why we are seeing new albums of unreleased Beatles studio recordings.
Copyright is supposed to protect the work for a limited period of time. I think the longest period of time that could possibly be considered limited would be a term not to exceed 70 years from the date a work was written (Sorry, all you heirs and estates.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The underlying purpose of copyright law has always been the encouragement of public dissemination by the author, for without dissemination learning about what the author is saying is a bit difficult to achieve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Automatic protection is excessive as-is, but has some value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Automatic protection is excessive as-is, but has some value
Either you are being disingenuous, or you haven't thought that through.
What you are saying is that:
1) Free software needs to use those licenses to remain free because copyright law is utterly insane.
2) Because free software is using licenses, we should keep copyright law utterly insane.
Just because a generally good thing has figured out a way to use a broken system against itself doesn't mean we should keep the broken system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The soldier who didn't write
Soldier #2: I don't want someone else to potentially profit off of my hard work writing that letter by putting it on display in a Library or something!
Soldier #1: But how will you keep in touch with your family then?
Soldier #2: I won't, it's a small price to pay for making sure that greedy people who want everything for free won't profit off of my writing without paying me.
Soldier #1: But who would pay for a copy of your letters, besides your family?
Soldier #2: Well... fans of me... if I ever hypothetically become famous... I wouldn't want to lose some of my hypothetical wealth to libraries just putting my letters on display for free! Scarcity is a good thing for increasing my potential hypothetical wealth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The soldier who didn't write
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FINALLY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imho, copyright should end with the death of the person who got the copyright. And if it is in an area that would help humanity as a whole (i.e. pharma) then 5 and max 10 years. It just can't be that on one side we see ourselves as a positiv society but on the other side we let people die because they can't pay for medicine that is dirt cheap to produce but they aren't allowed to produce themselves because of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright terms should be temporary, and copyrighted work should never be thought of as property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
makes no sense; display isn't copying
Although I completely agree that copyright is out of control, that terms are too long, etc-etc., whatever is bothering these museums in the UK is not applicable in the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: makes no sense; display isn't copying
Copyright doesn't just cover making copies. It also covers public performance and display, among many other things.
"If display were the same as copying then all "contemporary" art museums and galleries would be out of business instantly"
It depends, I believe. If the original artwork was purchased, first sale rights apply to the work and so the museum/gallery has the right to use the work as they wish as long as they don't violate other laws. They may also have had specific permission from the original artist. If the work wasn't sold to them, or if they are orphaned works where express permission cannot be granted, they may have problems.
The way I understand it at least, by displaying something that was not sold to them by its creator but is still not automatically in the public domain, there are some very grey areas that could leave them liable. It may also be that they're overstating the issue somewhat, but using extreme examples to indicate to the public how dangerous copyright laws are becoming.
"whatever is bothering these museums in the UK is not applicable in the USA."
So? Do UK museums not get to protest their own copyright law now, or does the right to protest only come in when the US gets involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: makes no sense; display isn't copying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: makes no sense; display isn't copying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: makes no sense; display isn't copying
That's stupid.
So they're campaigning to influence a consultation that's currently being carried out by the IPO.
Open consultation:
Reducing the duration of copyright in certain unpublished works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Especially ones written on a battlefield whereby the writer won't be able to file an original copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
Just because things are 'personal' does not exclude them from copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its Just A Media Stunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you think more World War I letters will get written if copyright law doesn't protect them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I just got "I like to eat Paste, I like to eat paste" and then the second line LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LOLwut, that's all kinds of stupid.
Or did you forget the sarc mark, buddy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems slightly fishy. Unfortunately they're not displaying very well what the petition aims to do so it actually makes it look like people support lifetime + 70.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since no one as yet has provided any link to the specific section of UK law these libraries are relying upon to make their claim, I have to wonder if this is a significant issue or a tempest in a teapot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being as these are from WW 1, they are now of historical interest, and the copyright will have passed onto children, grand children and great grandchildren.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh???
It's referenced at least twice above. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 170(2).
Muppet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh???
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/170
It gives a reference to a pending addition, which leads to this (see item (3)(2)). I hope this is right:
76Power to reduce duration of copyright in transitional cases
(1)Section 170 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (transitional provisions and savings) is amended as follows.
(2)At the beginning insert “ (1) ”.
(3)At the end insert—
“(2)The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule 1 to reduce the duration of copyright in existing works which are unpublished, other than photographs or films.
(3)The regulations may provide for the copyright to expire—
(a)with the end of the term of protection of copyright laid down by Directive 2006/116/EC or at any later time;
(b)subject to that, on the commencement of the regulations or at any later time.
(4)“Existing works” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1.
(5)Regulations under subsection (2) may—
(a)make different provision for different purposes;
(b)make supplementary or transitional provision;
(c)make consequential provision, including provision amending any enactment or subordinate legislation passed or made before that subsection comes into force.
(6)The power to make regulations under subsection (2) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(7)A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]