"Not so fast. Is there any evidence that the end-users (i.e. the people clicking on the links) were not doing so for non-commercial, personal use?"
This wasn't an infringement proceeding. No one was being sued over any specific infringement. It was a declaratory judgment asking whether or not Meltwater and their end users might need a licence.
NLA took Meltwater to the Copyright Tribunal to argue over a licence agreement (it's a lower-than-a-court thing for sorting out this stuff) but the Tribunal realised it couldn't rule on whether or not end users need a licence. This question was then referred to the High Court, hence the case.
The court ruled that some end users (at least those excluded by the T&Cs) would need a licence. It's also worth noting that Meltwater didn't appeal - the PRCA did; which is an association of PR people; i.e. people who use Meltwater's service as part of their job.
A few things to note. The Court was only looking at News sites. Specifically, the sites of the 6 claimant companies (including the Independent). Each of these sites have Terms and conditions that restrict their sites to non-commercial, personal use. This means that even if there is an implied licence, it would be revoked.
But the Court didn't really look at that issue. All the court was asked to rule on was (a) whether or not visiting a website (or receiving an email) could involve making an infringing copy, and (b) whether or not the temporary copying defence applies. The court found yes, for (a), and no, for (b).
They didn't say that headlines, summaries and extracts were protected by copyright, merely that, in some circumstances they could be.
However, this does leave a massive hole in copyright law, that hasn't been ruled on by the courts, that is identified in the article: ordinary internet browsing could be an infringement of copyright if there is no explicit licence.
The reason this anomaly appears in the UK is that we have neither private use or fair use exemptions/limitations. In the US you don't have to worry about this sort of thing as it would almost certainly be covered by the latter. In most other places it would be covered by the former. As with most problems with UK copyright law, this is a consequence of the restrictions being broad and general, and the defences being technology-specific.
The really odd part about this is that it could mean someone can commit an infringement merely by *receiving* an email, or visiting a website. Particularly those with big "all rights reserved" notices on them... one imagines that, following this ruling, merely seeing such a notice on a page means you have broken the law.
This is, in many ways, a worrying ruling - but the court is severely limited by what is asked of it, and what the lawyers put before it.
I think they're warning that if he continues to sell stuff in the US, thus breaking US copyright law, the UK court will be happy to make him stop (as he will be doing something in the UK that is having a direct, illegal effect in the US) but they will not stop him selling stuff here.
Of course, there's nothing stopping Lucasfilm talking to the ICE, getting his .com domain name seized and trying to get him extradited... well, other than his legal team.
Ianal, but I think this is the clearest summation of the issue.
As for the US charges - his company was first sued in 2004 in California, hence the $20k damages award; but as he's UK-based, it didn't change anything, so Lucasfilm sued him here (and lost due to the props not being copyrightable).
I think the court is also suggesting that if he keeps selling stuff in the US (breaking US copyright law) the UK court can step in and stop him, but they won't stop him doing stuff here.
There seems to be a lot of confusion over what, exactly, the court was saying here (even from the lawyers) - often strange things happen when cases in unusual areas make it to the Supreme Court. The idea seems to be that a UK court will not enforce a US patent, or even consider it, as patents are jurisdiction-specific due to being registered in that country. Similarly, a UK court will not like ruling on a matter concerning land or property in foreign countries.
However, the court seemed to feel that copyright is a natural thing, so isn't bound to any one jurisdiction. The UK court is therefore happy to look into issues with copyright law - however the normal issues wrt jurisdiction apply, so the case must have a strong connection to the UK and the UK must be the most appropriate place for the case.
I think... over half the judgment was on this issue and it was rather complex. It may just be that they're saying the US can apply their copyright law to a UK resident if they want to - but possibly only in the US.
In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if the ... editors at the Daily Mail are just clueless,
Having read far too many Daily Mail articles, this wouldn't surprise me at all.
I'm not even sure how they could think there is a legal basis on that - while "sufficient acknowledgement" is required in some of the fair dealing copyright defences including for reporting of current events, that defence doesn't even apply to photographs...
Sadly, I don't think it's just the Daily Mail that is confused about even the basics of copyright law...
If you read the judgment, one of the alternatives considered was restricting people to accessing the Internet on specific computer (i.e. at public libraries, police stations) or for specific purposes. This was also rejected as still being too harsh. The same would apply (to some degree) to saying individuals just cannot use their home connection. Incidentally, that very argument ("they can just use a friend's connection") shows how stupid disconnection would be as a punishment in the first place.
For the record, the Court opted for restricting access to devices that store history, a ban on tampering with the history and a requirement to show the history to a police officer on request.
As for being a precedent, the statement is unlikely to be binding on any Court concerning copyright, but some of those statements are likely to be highly persuasive. That said, it looks like disconnections are still a few years away in the UK for copyright. At the moment the focus is on web-blocking.
In terms of "fair use" - you are correct that the UK has no fair use law - fair dealing for the purpose of criticism and review might hold, it depends on whether the court accepts criticism of the copyright issue as being close enough to criticism of the photograph.
Criticism for the purpose of news reporting doesn't cover photographs, so that's out. Of course, you're in the US, and the UK isn't quite at the stage of having foreigners extradited over copyright. He might (depending on how the Newzbin2 case goes) be able to get a blocking order against the site, though.
With regard to the public domain issue (following UK law), it is worth noting that for computer-generated works, "the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken." [s 9(3), CDPA 1988]. One could argue that, given this must be specified for computer-generated works, it does not apply to all other types of work - thus Slater isn't the author (nor did he "create" it as required by s9(1)].
Annoyingly I was reading something earlier this week about the difference between thinking up ideas and creating the expression - I think it was in a case where the difference was held to be significant - can't remember where, though.
Of course, all this is rather academic as the work was created in Indonesia, so Indonesian law applies; as discussed elsewhere, the relevant statement seems to be that "if a work designed by someone is realised and worked out by other persons under his guidance and supervision, the author shall be the person who designed the work." So you're arguing definitions of guidance and supervision. [source for Indonesian copyright law]
From what I understand, the treaty isn't really that big a deal; yes it loosened the requirements for extradition to the US, but apparently only to put it on the terms we already have for extraditing to the UK [the difference being that the US courts seem to not like extraditing people, so will find excuses, such as the US constitution, to apply.]
I haven't done much research on UK extradition law (that's next week's job) but it looks like it all comes from the Extradition Act 2003, and countries need to show that the person is "accused in [that country] of the commission of an offence" - that's about it. That's not a treaty with the US, that's an Act of Parliament... and it is rather ridiculous.
I'm not a lawyer, but I find it hard to see any *legal* argument against extradition. Apparently the next hearing must be within two months, so expect to hear more in September.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
Until Monday evening's judgment, it's working out great - we have a fairly sensible and functional privacy law, it's just being attacked (using classic FUD techniques and some outright lies) by the press, who keep losing cases.
[Remember, this is the same press who were consistently breaking the law on phone-tapping for 10 years and are trying to deflect attention from that.]
Monday evening's judgment (the one this refers to) goes a little too far, perhaps, in finally splitting off misuse of private information from breach of confidence, but it still works quite well.
What the problem is, is that we have politicians who aren't willing to put in place stronger rules against the tabloid press (because they rely on them for coverage). The press are holding Parliament to ransom, so Parliament can't act; leaving the Courts stuck doing the dirty work.
Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
I thought it was specifically the couts' place to determine unenforcability, as a check on the Legislature and Executive Branch.
To an extent, but it's more that the Court should say be telling Parliament to change the law when it doesn't work - and also this is a lowly High Court judge; he really shouldn't be messing with the law.
Key words are "seeking to have". Just because claims are being filed, doesn't mean they will succeed.
The ZAM case isn't a super-injunction (using the legal definition) as, for starters, there is a public judgment.
To be blunt, if she is breaking a court order, of course she is liable to go to prison. Secondly, if she is blackmailing him, she could go to jail for that as well. In either case, though, I imagine a judge would be very unlikely to grant anonymity to someone they're locking up.
Having said all that, as unwilling as I am to criticise UK judges (given the unjustified attacks they're getting from the press and world in general, for simply applying Parliament's orders) I do think Tugendhat J may have gone too far in the ZAM case.
I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
Why is it that many people fail to get that the UK (and much of Europe) has never really cared about freedom of speech in the same way the US has. Just because you hold it so highly, doesn't mean the rest of us should.
As for this ruling, the key part is the end:
The order has not protected the claimant and his family from taunting on the internet. It is still effective to protect them from taunting and other intrusion and harassment in the print media.
Combine that with what Lord Neuberger said on Friday:
At the moment the law seems to be that even if the information which is the subject matter of the injunction is on the web, or may go on the web, that is by no means the same degree of intrusion under privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front page of a national newspaper, which people trust more and has far greater circulation than those bloggers and tweeters
and you can kind of see where they are coming from. Yes, they are aware that once something is on the Internet it will spread, and the more you try to remove it, the more it will spread. However, they also know that, for now, at least, the biggest threat comes from the newspapers. A few thousand people may follow the stuff on Twitter (mainly those who would find out some way or another anyway), but the front page of the tabloids will get millions of people talking about it.
As for the "suing Twitter" stuff, what the judges are saying isn't that Twitter must follow the UK law (and the Guardian comment piece linked above is written by someone who doesn't have a clue; two factual errors in the caption of the image alone), but that UK users of Twitter must follow UK law, and in particular, when a Court tells newspapers not to do something, they shouldn't just go on Twitter and do it there instead. Since when did it become acceptable to break basic principles of criminal law (like not interfering with ongoing cases) simply because you can get away with it technologically?
As a final point, it is worth highlighting what Eady J said in his judgment in this case yesterday:
Parliament may at some stage wish to change the law and make specific provision in the light of these developments, but in the meantime the courts are obliged to apply the law as it currently stands. .... Should the court buckle every time one of its orders meets widespread disobedience or defiance? In a democratic society, if a law is deemed to be unenforceable or unpopular, it is for the legislature to make such changes as it decides are appropriate.
The only insanity in this situation is coming from the press (who are downright lying about stuff) and politicians, openly breaking the law (which they can do) and their own rules, more interested in scoring points than debating a real issue.
A few points from me (although I have to be careful what I say as I'm bound by the Court order).
This isn't a super-injunction. We can tell this as there's a public judgment in the case.
Secondly, the reason for the injunction is to prevent disclosure of information before there is a trial; this is partly to reduce damage done by an disclose if it is found to be unlawful (i.e. safer to not tell and then find out you can, than tell and then be sued for damages), and partly to protect all parties' right to a fair trial.
Thirdly, these things may not be cheap (costing £10k-60k), but they're considerably cheaper than an actual privacy trial (in the Mosley case, News Group Newspapers ended up paying £420k in costs). Yes, the law is expensive, but injunctions are comparatively cheap.
Fourthly, the lawsuit against Twitter is (likely) hoping to identify a particular user who started all this fuss a couple of weeks ago; there is good reason to believe that they were directly linked to one of the big newspapers. This isn't about going after random people on the Internet, this is making sure that newspapers aren't circumventing court orders for their own gain.
The really sad thing is that the press have managed to twist this case so it is "a good thing" for people to invade someone's privacy. This case isn't in the news because an injunction was granted (in circumstances the judge described as "blackmail"), but because our newspapers have found it to be a great opportunity to both attack the UK's law on privacy (which gets in their way of splashing the intimate details of people's lives across their front pages), and attack the Internet and social media (both encapsulated in a Daily Mail headline "vile online lies only spread because judges are suppressing the truth", which referred to "irresponsible" "Twitter rogues").
Also, I imagine some newspapers are keen to distract people from the fact that they are in serious trouble for contempt of court over previous reporting, or for illegally hacking into the phones of celebrities, politicians and the relatives of murder victims.
Re: Re: Some thoughts and a confession - does the US actually have fair use?
So is US fair use worth the paper that it is written on?
Personally, I don't think it is. And that is reflected in PPUk's submission.
While it may have a similar practical effect in the UK as the US, that is only because the law here is so often ignored; and speaking as a legal-type, that is never a good thing for a society. This is (partly) why it is so important to change the law to fit society, as there's little chance of changing society to fit the law.
In my view, the way to do this is to seriously cut back on copyright law, so it only applies where it should and there's no need for broad or uncertain defences.
To be blunt, having read up on EU law, we were never going to get "fair use" - it couldn't get through the EC (not that I think it is a good thing). On the whole, the report does look very impressive, although I still think it could have very worrying effects.
As we saw from the Gowers Review, there's a danger that the "industry-friendly" recommendations will be warped to the major lobbyists' will, and the others will be ignored. In particular, I have serious concerns with what a "Digital Copyright Exchange" could look like in the hands of the PRS/BPI et al. - sounds like an excuse to give them back their monopoly on distribution.
While I'm here, I should probably confess; I included it in PPUk's evidence when talking about patents (which I know annoyingly little about); obviously I made sure it was CC-BY first, and would have contacted you but it was one of those "already past the deadline" moments. Still, it is nice to know that they read what I put...
While I haven't read the judgment myself (it's in French, but available through here), it seems that the Court wasn't objecting to linking but to caching. The case isn't quite as ridiculous as it may seem, as Google's cache was apparently making paid-for articles available for free, through the cache.
While Belgium probably has a copyright exception for reporting current events (I think it's in EU law), keeping a cache of paid-for news articles for a month was found to go too far.
Once you step out in public or open your curtains, you are not entitled to any privacy.
Actually, in Europe, you are. At least as far as the law is concerned - there's plenty of case law from the ECrHR on it (I think Peck v UK is one of the main ones). It is perfectly possible to have an "expectation of privacy" while in public.
And that is probably the difference between what the BBC have done, and what Google did. When you are going about your daily life, you do not expect to have your picture taken, in reasonable detail, and posted for all to see on the Internet. When you are attending a twice*-in-a-lifetime event, as part of a huge crowd, where there are hundreds, if not thousands of cameras present, pointing in all directions, including large chunks of the media, I think there is less of an expectation of privacy.
There is also an element of consent; i.e. turning up at such a high-profile event, rather than having the camera come to you.
The CCTV comparison is slightly misleading; London may have quite a few cameras - probably not as many as some people might think - but most are privately owned, and directed at private property (the exception being the Underground). In any case, the part in bold above is also important; images gathered by a CCTV system must comply with the Data Protection Act; i.e. be stored securely, not be displayed to the public and so on. This is significantly different from what Google (and the BBC) did, in making the images available.
Do I think it is hypocritical of the UK media and politicians to be slagging off Google and ignoring the BBC? Yes. But it wouldn't be the first time...
I drafted large chunks of the Pirate Party UK's response to the Hargreaves Review, and recommended against having switching to a "fair use" defence. To be blunt, for many of the reasons given by the Telegraph - it is a common law defence and we don't have the case law here - as it is, there's enough confusion about fair dealing due to a lack of case law, adding "fair use" is unlikely to make things better.
As it is, it doesn't seem to be working that well in the US - it seems to be every other week there's a story on TechDirt about copyright lawsuits with an obvious "fair use" defence. PPUk recommended that rather than creating a new, vague defence, we limit the scope of copyright to when it is actually needed rather than expanding the defences.
One public figure's desire for privacy doesn't supersede the free speech rights of millions of their fellow citizens.
Actually, in large chunks of Europe, that is precisely the case - at least with freedom of expression.
Under the ECHR, freedom of expression can be restricted to protect someone's right to private life. On the other hand, someone's right to private life can be restricted to protect another's freedom of expression. It's all a big balancing act.
Of course, this usually involves making someone pay up damages after a trial - the idea behind injunctions seems to be to lessen the potential damage done between the issue coming up and the end of the trial.
On the post: UK Appeals Court Agrees That Clicking A Link And Opening A Website... Is Infringing
Re: Re:
This wasn't an infringement proceeding. No one was being sued over any specific infringement. It was a declaratory judgment asking whether or not Meltwater and their end users might need a licence.
NLA took Meltwater to the Copyright Tribunal to argue over a licence agreement (it's a lower-than-a-court thing for sorting out this stuff) but the Tribunal realised it couldn't rule on whether or not end users need a licence. This question was then referred to the High Court, hence the case.
The court ruled that some end users (at least those excluded by the T&Cs) would need a licence. It's also worth noting that Meltwater didn't appeal - the PRCA did; which is an association of PR people; i.e. people who use Meltwater's service as part of their job.
On the post: UK Appeals Court Agrees That Clicking A Link And Opening A Website... Is Infringing
But the Court didn't really look at that issue. All the court was asked to rule on was (a) whether or not visiting a website (or receiving an email) could involve making an infringing copy, and (b) whether or not the temporary copying defence applies. The court found yes, for (a), and no, for (b).
They didn't say that headlines, summaries and extracts were protected by copyright, merely that, in some circumstances they could be.
However, this does leave a massive hole in copyright law, that hasn't been ruled on by the courts, that is identified in the article: ordinary internet browsing could be an infringement of copyright if there is no explicit licence.
The reason this anomaly appears in the UK is that we have neither private use or fair use exemptions/limitations. In the US you don't have to worry about this sort of thing as it would almost certainly be covered by the latter. In most other places it would be covered by the former. As with most problems with UK copyright law, this is a consequence of the restrictions being broad and general, and the defences being technology-specific.
The really odd part about this is that it could mean someone can commit an infringement merely by *receiving* an email, or visiting a website. Particularly those with big "all rights reserved" notices on them... one imagines that, following this ruling, merely seeing such a notice on a page means you have broken the law.
This is, in many ways, a worrying ruling - but the court is severely limited by what is asked of it, and what the lawyers put before it.
On the post: Forget The Stormtrooper Costumes, Get Worried About UK Courts Saying They Can Judge US Copyright Law
Re:
I think they're warning that if he continues to sell stuff in the US, thus breaking US copyright law, the UK court will be happy to make him stop (as he will be doing something in the UK that is having a direct, illegal effect in the US) but they will not stop him selling stuff here.
Of course, there's nothing stopping Lucasfilm talking to the ICE, getting his .com domain name seized and trying to get him extradited... well, other than his legal team.
On the post: Forget The Stormtrooper Costumes, Get Worried About UK Courts Saying They Can Judge US Copyright Law
Re:
As for the US charges - his company was first sued in 2004 in California, hence the $20k damages award; but as he's UK-based, it didn't change anything, so Lucasfilm sued him here (and lost due to the props not being copyrightable).
I think the court is also suggesting that if he keeps selling stuff in the US (breaking US copyright law) the UK court can step in and stop him, but they won't stop him doing stuff here.
On the post: Forget The Stormtrooper Costumes, Get Worried About UK Courts Saying They Can Judge US Copyright Law
However, the court seemed to feel that copyright is a natural thing, so isn't bound to any one jurisdiction. The UK court is therefore happy to look into issues with copyright law - however the normal issues wrt jurisdiction apply, so the case must have a strong connection to the UK and the UK must be the most appropriate place for the case.
I think... over half the judgment was on this issue and it was rather complex. It may just be that they're saying the US can apply their copyright law to a UK resident if they want to - but possibly only in the US.
On the post: Did The AP Claim Copyright On Public Domain NASA Pictures?
I'm not even sure how they could think there is a legal basis on that - while "sufficient acknowledgement" is required in some of the fair dealing copyright defences including for reporting of current events, that defence doesn't even apply to photographs...
Sadly, I don't think it's just the Daily Mail that is confused about even the basics of copyright law...
On the post: UK: Sex Offenders More Deserving Of Internet Access Than Infringers
Re:
For the record, the Court opted for restricting access to devices that store history, a ban on tampering with the history and a requirement to show the history to a police officer on request.
As for being a precedent, the statement is unlikely to be binding on any Court concerning copyright, but some of those statements are likely to be highly persuasive. That said, it looks like disconnections are still a few years away in the UK for copyright. At the moment the focus is on web-blocking.
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re:
Criticism for the purpose of news reporting doesn't cover photographs, so that's out. Of course, you're in the US, and the UK isn't quite at the stage of having foreigners extradited over copyright. He might (depending on how the Newzbin2 case goes) be able to get a blocking order against the site, though.
With regard to the public domain issue (following UK law), it is worth noting that for computer-generated works, "the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken." [s 9(3), CDPA 1988]. One could argue that, given this must be specified for computer-generated works, it does not apply to all other types of work - thus Slater isn't the author (nor did he "create" it as required by s9(1)].
Annoyingly I was reading something earlier this week about the difference between thinking up ideas and creating the expression - I think it was in a case where the difference was held to be significant - can't remember where, though.
Of course, all this is rather academic as the work was created in Indonesia, so Indonesian law applies; as discussed elsewhere, the relevant statement seems to be that "if a work designed by someone is realised and worked out by other persons under his guidance and supervision, the author shall be the person who designed the work." So you're arguing definitions of guidance and supervision. [source for Indonesian copyright law]
On the post: Why Is The Justice Department Pretending US Copyright Laws Apply In The UK?
Re:
I haven't done much research on UK extradition law (that's next week's job) but it looks like it all comes from the Extradition Act 2003, and countries need to show that the person is "accused in [that country] of the commission of an offence" - that's about it. That's not a treaty with the US, that's an Act of Parliament... and it is rather ridiculous.
I'm not a lawyer, but I find it hard to see any *legal* argument against extradition. Apparently the next hearing must be within two months, so expect to hear more in September.
On the post: Insanity Rules: UK Judge Says Mass Revealing Of Ryan Giggs Name Means Injunction Is Even More Necessary
Re: Re: Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
[Remember, this is the same press who were consistently breaking the law on phone-tapping for 10 years and are trying to deflect attention from that.]
Monday evening's judgment (the one this refers to) goes a little too far, perhaps, in finally splitting off misuse of private information from breach of confidence, but it still works quite well.
What the problem is, is that we have politicians who aren't willing to put in place stronger rules against the tabloid press (because they rely on them for coverage). The press are holding Parliament to ransom, so Parliament can't act; leaving the Courts stuck doing the dirty work.
On the post: Insanity Rules: UK Judge Says Mass Revealing Of Ryan Giggs Name Means Injunction Is Even More Necessary
Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
To an extent, but it's more that the Court should say be telling Parliament to change the law when it doesn't work - and also this is a lowly High Court judge; he really shouldn't be messing with the law.
On the post: Insanity Rules: UK Judge Says Mass Revealing Of Ryan Giggs Name Means Injunction Is Even More Necessary
Re: Re:
The ZAM case isn't a super-injunction (using the legal definition) as, for starters, there is a public judgment.
To be blunt, if she is breaking a court order, of course she is liable to go to prison. Secondly, if she is blackmailing him, she could go to jail for that as well. In either case, though, I imagine a judge would be very unlikely to grant anonymity to someone they're locking up.
Having said all that, as unwilling as I am to criticise UK judges (given the unjustified attacks they're getting from the press and world in general, for simply applying Parliament's orders) I do think Tugendhat J may have gone too far in the ZAM case.
On the post: Insanity Rules: UK Judge Says Mass Revealing Of Ryan Giggs Name Means Injunction Is Even More Necessary
I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
As for this ruling, the key part is the end:
Combine that with what Lord Neuberger said on Friday:
and you can kind of see where they are coming from. Yes, they are aware that once something is on the Internet it will spread, and the more you try to remove it, the more it will spread. However, they also know that, for now, at least, the biggest threat comes from the newspapers. A few thousand people may follow the stuff on Twitter (mainly those who would find out some way or another anyway), but the front page of the tabloids will get millions of people talking about it.
As for the "suing Twitter" stuff, what the judges are saying isn't that Twitter must follow the UK law (and the Guardian comment piece linked above is written by someone who doesn't have a clue; two factual errors in the caption of the image alone), but that UK users of Twitter must follow UK law, and in particular, when a Court tells newspapers not to do something, they shouldn't just go on Twitter and do it there instead. Since when did it become acceptable to break basic principles of criminal law (like not interfering with ongoing cases) simply because you can get away with it technologically?
As a final point, it is worth highlighting what Eady J said in his judgment in this case yesterday:
The only insanity in this situation is coming from the press (who are downright lying about stuff) and politicians, openly breaking the law (which they can do) and their own rules, more interested in scoring points than debating a real issue.
On the post: Forget The Streisand Effect, I Think We've Seen The Dawning Of The Giggs Effect
A few points
This isn't a super-injunction. We can tell this as there's a public judgment in the case.
Secondly, the reason for the injunction is to prevent disclosure of information before there is a trial; this is partly to reduce damage done by an disclose if it is found to be unlawful (i.e. safer to not tell and then find out you can, than tell and then be sued for damages), and partly to protect all parties' right to a fair trial.
Thirdly, these things may not be cheap (costing £10k-60k), but they're considerably cheaper than an actual privacy trial (in the Mosley case, News Group Newspapers ended up paying £420k in costs). Yes, the law is expensive, but injunctions are comparatively cheap.
Fourthly, the lawsuit against Twitter is (likely) hoping to identify a particular user who started all this fuss a couple of weeks ago; there is good reason to believe that they were directly linked to one of the big newspapers. This isn't about going after random people on the Internet, this is making sure that newspapers aren't circumventing court orders for their own gain.
The really sad thing is that the press have managed to twist this case so it is "a good thing" for people to invade someone's privacy. This case isn't in the news because an injunction was granted (in circumstances the judge described as "blackmail"), but because our newspapers have found it to be a great opportunity to both attack the UK's law on privacy (which gets in their way of splashing the intimate details of people's lives across their front pages), and attack the Internet and social media (both encapsulated in a Daily Mail headline "vile online lies only spread because judges are suppressing the truth", which referred to "irresponsible" "Twitter rogues").
Also, I imagine some newspapers are keen to distract people from the fact that they are in serious trouble for contempt of court over previous reporting, or for illegally hacking into the phones of celebrities, politicians and the relatives of murder victims.
On the post: UK Copyright Review Hardly Surprising Or Radical; But Will Face Opposition
Re: Re: Some thoughts and a confession - does the US actually have fair use?
Personally, I don't think it is. And that is reflected in PPUk's submission.
While it may have a similar practical effect in the UK as the US, that is only because the law here is so often ignored; and speaking as a legal-type, that is never a good thing for a society. This is (partly) why it is so important to change the law to fit society, as there's little chance of changing society to fit the law.
In my view, the way to do this is to seriously cut back on copyright law, so it only applies where it should and there's no need for broad or uncertain defences.
On the post: UK Copyright Review Hardly Surprising Or Radical; But Will Face Opposition
Some thoughts and a confession
As we saw from the Gowers Review, there's a danger that the "industry-friendly" recommendations will be warped to the major lobbyists' will, and the others will be ignored. In particular, I have serious concerns with what a "Digital Copyright Exchange" could look like in the hands of the PRS/BPI et al. - sounds like an excuse to give them back their monopoly on distribution.
While I'm here, I should probably confess; I included it in PPUk's evidence when talking about patents (which I know annoyingly little about); obviously I made sure it was CC-BY first, and would have contacted you but it was one of those "already past the deadline" moments. Still, it is nice to know that they read what I put...
On the post: Belgian Appeals Court Says Google Must Pay Up For Linking To Newspaper Websites
Reading the judgment....
While Belgium probably has a copyright exception for reporting current events (I think it's in EU law), keeping a cache of paid-for news articles for a month was found to go too far.
On the post: Google Street View Is Invasion Of Privacy... But The BBC Showing Everyone At The Royal Wedding?
Re: Re: Re: You can't see the difference?
Actually, in Europe, you are. At least as far as the law is concerned - there's plenty of case law from the ECrHR on it (I think Peck v UK is one of the main ones). It is perfectly possible to have an "expectation of privacy" while in public.
And that is probably the difference between what the BBC have done, and what Google did. When you are going about your daily life, you do not expect to have your picture taken, in reasonable detail, and posted for all to see on the Internet. When you are attending a twice*-in-a-lifetime event, as part of a huge crowd, where there are hundreds, if not thousands of cameras present, pointing in all directions, including large chunks of the media, I think there is less of an expectation of privacy.
There is also an element of consent; i.e. turning up at such a high-profile event, rather than having the camera come to you.
The CCTV comparison is slightly misleading; London may have quite a few cameras - probably not as many as some people might think - but most are privately owned, and directed at private property (the exception being the Underground). In any case, the part in bold above is also important; images gathered by a CCTV system must comply with the Data Protection Act; i.e. be stored securely, not be displayed to the public and so on. This is significantly different from what Google (and the BBC) did, in making the images available.
Do I think it is hypocritical of the UK media and politicians to be slagging off Google and ignoring the BBC? Yes. But it wouldn't be the first time...
* Depending on divorce rates.
On the post: New Content Industry Talking Point: Fair Use Is Bad Because It Leads To Litigation
Fair use would be a bad thing in the UK
As it is, it doesn't seem to be working that well in the US - it seems to be every other week there's a story on TechDirt about copyright lawsuits with an obvious "fair use" defence. PPUk recommended that rather than creating a new, vague defence, we limit the scope of copyright to when it is actually needed rather than expanding the defences.
On the post: UK Continues Issuing Tons Of Super Injunctions To Keep Famous People From Being Embarrassed
Re: Re:
Actually, in large chunks of Europe, that is precisely the case - at least with freedom of expression.
Under the ECHR, freedom of expression can be restricted to protect someone's right to private life. On the other hand, someone's right to private life can be restricted to protect another's freedom of expression. It's all a big balancing act.
Of course, this usually involves making someone pay up damages after a trial - the idea behind injunctions seems to be to lessen the potential damage done between the issue coming up and the end of the trial.
Next >>