
This short article explains the key points of copyright law - those which should be familiar to every website operator. Website operators need to know about copyright law because copyright materials are their stock-in-trade, and because dealing in copyright materials gives rise to legal risks.
Complaints of copyright infringement involving websites are relatively common; and infringement lawsuits can be ruinous. It therefore pays to be careful. Whatever one may think of the law of copyright, ignorance isn't going to impress a judge.
The article is written from the point of view of English law. However, there is a measure of international harmonization of copyright law, and most of the points made can be validly made in relation to the copyright law of most other jurisdictions.
Copyright must be properly distinguished from other kinds of intellectual property (IP) right: patents, trade marks, rights in designs, database rights, and so on. Nothing, but nothing, pains the IP expert more than many journalists' apparent belief that the different kinds of IP right are interchangeable.
Copyright law protects a diversity of "copyright works". It protects the oil painting, operatic symphony and poetic epic with the same principles and rules as the doodle, the advertising ditty, and the slap-dash legal article.
Although "websites" are not a kind of copyright work, their constituent elements are likely to be protected by copyright. Website text and code may be protected as literary works; photographs and other website artworks may be protected as artistic works; website music tracks may be protected both as musical works and through sound recording copyright. A single video clip can accommodate a profusion of different rights.
Simply cataloguing the different copyrights subsisting in a website can be a major undertaking.
Copyright isn't concerned with very little things. It does not protect so-called de minimis works, the classic examples of which are titles (such as The Da Vinci Code) and newspaper headlines (such as Small earthquake in Chile, not many killed); nor does copyright prevent "insubstantial copying" from a work which is protected by copyright.
Unfortunately it is often difficult to decide whether a work is really de minimis, or an example of copying insubstantial. Hence the practice, prevalent in some of our cultural industries, of demanding express permission for the least act of copying.
(This is not to say that it's always OK to borrow others' titles etc. Titles may, for example, be protected under the law of trade marks or passing off.)
It is sometimes said that there is no copyright in an idea. This is not entirely accurate, and is more than a little misleading. Although there is no copyright in an idea as such - i.e. an idea which has not been fixed in the form of a copyright work - that is not to say that copyright does not protect the ideas which inhere in copyright works: it does, providing the ideas are of the right kind and are not too general. For example, copyright in a story could be infringed by a person copying the plot of that story, notwithstanding that the copyist takes care to avoid lifting a single phrase from the original story. Note that the ideas underlying a web design,
no matter how specific, are probably of the wrong sort to attract the protection of the law of copyright.
Do you have a right to be identified as the author on copies of your work? Not necessarily.
This right, the right of paternity, is one of the principal moral rights which arise in relation to copyright works. Moral rights are conceptually distinct from copyright itself. In English law (unusually) the paternity right only applies where it has been asserted by the author. So, if you licence others to use your artwork, but don't assert the right of paternity, they may use it without crediting you!
Some of the statutory defences to a claim of copyright infringement, including the defences of "fair dealing for the purposes of research and private study" and "fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review", usually only apply where an author has been credited in an appropriate way.
Try Googling "copyright registration". You'll find a plethora of different UK companies offering to help protect your works. All you have to do is submit your magnum opus and pay their fees; all they have to do is not lose your submission. Nice work.
The alleged purpose of these services is to provide evidence in the event of a court case. However, the only conceivable evidence such a company could offer is that a work was created before the time of submission. Time of creation is only occasionally an issue in copyright infringement lawsuits. We aren't aware of a single copyright case which has even involved the evidence of such a company, let alone turned upon such evidence. So, don't waste your money.
Note that the position regarding US copyright law is different. Registration with the US Copyright Office, although not necessary, has a number of advantages. See www.copyright.gov for details.
The Copyright symbol matters little nowadays: in most jurisdictions copyright subsists in qualifying works, irrespective of what symbols they wear. The use of the symbol can be a pre-condition to copyright protection under the Universal Copyright Convention in countries which are not signed up to the Berne Convention - but all the major jurisdictions are now signed up to the Berne Convention.
The use of the symbol does however have the effect of reminding people about copyright protection. If accompanied by the name of the copyright owner, it lets users know who owns the copyright - and from whom a licence should be taken. It also looks rather neat and professional.
In English law, permissions to use copyright works (also known as licences) do NOT need to be in writing. For instance, when you make a website available to the world, you grant an implied licence to internet users to copy that website for the purpose of viewing it on a web browser. However, the exact scope of implied and unwritten licences may be unclear.
There is one exception to the above rule: statutory "exclusive" licences must be in writing signed by or on behalf of the copyright owner, as must assignments (transfers) of copyright ownership.
Copyright infringement isn't just about copying. There are lots of different ways to infringe someone's copyright, and many of them don't directly involve copying. For instance, selling over your website CDs that someone else ripped may be copyright infringement. Again, making an adaptation of a copyright work, for instance recreating a motion picture as a cartoon strip, can infringe copyright, even if there is no literal copying.
Contrary to the impression given by certain content industry propaganda, copyright infringement isn't usually a criminal offence. Broadly speaking, in the UK, copyright infringement is only a crime if it is done deliberately in the course of a business or on a significant scale. So, downloading an infringing track for personal use may be copyright infringement, but it isn't usually a crime.
This is a revised version of an article was originally published on www.website-law.co.uk in November 2006.
SEQ Legal LLP
Howbery Park, Wallingford
Oxfordshire OX10 8BA, UK
Tel: +44(0)1491 821123
Unless otherwise stated, the information and resources on this website relate to English law.
By using our website, you agree to our use of web cookies. See our privacy policy for details.
www.template-contracts.co.uk
www.website-contracts.co.uk
Copyright © 2007-2013 SEQ Legal LLP.
Comments
Reproducing not exact images
Hi, we're thinking of going into business selling sports goods, memorabelia. If we, for example, produce an image of Arsenals club logo that isn't quite the same as their official one and state that "these goods are unofficial are are not connected with Aresnal FC" would we still be breaking copyright laws?
thanks
Anne
Trade mark infringement
It's interesting that you should choose Arsenal as an example. They were involved in a very famous case involving passing off and trade mark infringement (rather than copyright infringement) which went to the European Court of Justice. There's a good summary of the litigation here:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipcass/ipcass-dcats/ipcass-arsenal.htm
As you can seen, a disclaimer might get you around a passing off claim, but it wouldn't rescue you from a trade mark infringement claim. There could also be copyright infringement issues.
videos
We make videos in house to sell the products for the company we're employed by: does our company own these videos? Are they already copyrighted then by us? An ex employee has set up his own video company and copied some of our videos to use on his website. He helped to make them but can we ask him to take them down?
More information needed
Various different copyrights usually subsist in a video, and the answers to your questions depend to some extent upon information you have not provided. In particular:
On the face of it its seems likely that the ex-employee is infringing copyright - possibly your copyright - but I could not be sure without a lot more information.
Questions above
The videos are product reviews. We have scriptwriters who script them for our presenters and the information is based on the products themselves. We have cameramen who are also effectively directors and I guess this guy was the producer. All involved are employees of our company as was the ex-employee at the time of making the videos who has now cited said videos as his own. When I looked into it on the surface it seemed like he was probably infringing copyright but then I came across you to ask! I don't think we have anything as a company about copyright and IP ownership anyway. What is IP ownership?! How do we go about copyrighting future work? Thankyou so much!
Employee copyrights
The basic rule is that the first owner of copyright in works created by an employee in the course of his or her employment is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary (CDPA s11(2)).
So, unless you have transferred all your copyright in the film to the ex-employee or someone else, it seems likely that the use by the ex-employee of the film without permission is actionable. I suggest that you write to him formally (if you have not done so already), stating that his actions infringe your copyright, and asking for him to desist. If that doesn't work, then the next step would be to ask a solicitor to write on your behalf.
NB copyright subsist automatically in appropriate types of work - you don't have to jump through any procedural hoops to get copyright protection. You do, however, have to be very careful about what you contracts with employees, contractors and customers say about copyright.
The above
Thanks for all your help.
Publishing articles on a website
I am developing a website which aims to draw together and publish written material on a particular theme, most of which will have been previously published. There will also be video and photographic material. I do not want to infringe copyright. I have seen the following phrase on another website which publishes material: "Copyrights are retained by the author." (http://www.ifpe.org/index.html - see Reviews section on the right). I want to adapt this sentence to: "Copyrights of all materials published on this site are retained by the authors, creators and/or publishers and it is not our intention to infringe them. We ask that users of this site equally respect those rights by crediting authors, creators and/or publishers when using materials sourced from this site in any subsequent writing or posts on other websites." In addition, instructions for people posting materials will be on the home page to make sure that everything posted is duly credited. Is all this enough to avoid breaking relevant laws and demonstrate that it is our intention to operate lawfully? I will be grateful for any advice you can provide.
Some questions
A basic rule of copyright is that you need the copyright owner's permission to re-publish their material - generally, a credit will not act as a substitute for permission.
To provide more specific help, I would need more information about the site. What types of material will you be republishing - and in what way (e.g. entire photos, excerpts from poems)? What is the context of the publication? How will the previously published material get on to your site? Will you be responsible for selecting and publishing any of the material, or will that be exclusively the responsibility of your users? What if anything will you do to get permission?
Follow up on Rachel W's question
I am working on a similar website, where I would like to pull together information from various websites. If I were to write my own articles that included proper citations from others' works, would there be a copyright issue?
Copyright, copying and quotations
Hi Julie
As a general rule (there's always some exceptions where copyright is concerned!) there's no copyright in information. So, writing an original article that is based on information from others' works will not usually infringe copyright. In academic circles at least, doing this without crediting sources is considered to be plagiarism, but plagiarism is not a legal category.
If you are quoting more than minimal passages from others' works, then there is a chance of copyright infringement, unless one of the standard copyright defences applies. The most relevant of these would likely be "fair dealing of the purposes of criticism or review". This defence applies where you are quoting for the purpose of criticising or reviewing a copyright work (not necessarily the one you are quoting). One of the conditions of this defence is that you give proper attribution to the author.
Because of the narrowness of this and the other UK copyright defences, and the uncertainty surrounding their application, it is usual in print publishing to get permission for many types of quotation. However, on the web things tend to be a little more relaxed.
Copyright, copying and quotations
Thank you, your response if very helpful!
Cartoon copyright
I am currently creating cartoons with the help of an application. These are cartoon images of myself and my friends in various humorous situations and dialogues.
I consider these cartoons to be my intellectual property despite the fact that the impersonations are created by using an application owned by a third party.
Do I have the right and should I copyright my creations?
Copyright in cartoons
Thanks for your comment Elena.
The use of a software tool to create cartoons will not usually deprive you of the copyright, although in theory the licensing terms of the application could affect this. What application are you using?
You do not need to register copyrights, or jump through any other hoops. Copyright automatically protects appropriate types of work (such as original cartoons). Copyright registration services are offered by some private companies, but they are of questionable value.
Copyright in cartoons
Thank you for your prompt reply.
I am currently using the Bitstrips app.
Bitstrips T&Cs
A set of Britstrips T&Cs is available here:
http://bitstrips.com/terms.php
What follows assumes that these T&Cs apply.
The key terms regarding copyright are set out in Section 4:
So far, so good: they retain ownership of everything they have created; you retain ownership of everything you have created.
However:
So, although you retain ownership, they have a prima facie licence to exploit your posted content.
4.6 to 4.8 cover Bitstrips tools and "remixable" content - worth reading too.
4.9 Contains a limitation affecting commerial use of the service:
As you might expect, you're not allowed to reuse their content in a commercial context without consent (and presumably the payment of a licence fee). Nor apparently are you allowed to use the service itself for a commercial purpose. I'm not sure what the position would be as to the exploitation of content that has been created for a non-commercial purpose, but is later commercialised. This might be covered elsewhere in the T&Cs - I have only read section 4.
Information copyright
In a response to Julie (28/01/13) you said "As a general rule (there's always some exceptions where copyright is concerned!) there's no copyright in information."
If you wanted to create a "free to access" Google-type map of all bird-watching locations and this required collating locations from a wide range of web forums (contributed by users) and other web sources would this be okay? These existing sites generally do have their own terms of use.
Database right?
This sort of information collation exercise will usually be lawful, but there are a few traps to watch out for:
Database right?
Alasdair many thanks for the response. A follow up point:
T&Cs. You say "Just visiting a website won't usually bring a contract into being". Looking at an example web site that includes such a forum we might utilise, the Ts and Cs say:
By using the (name removed) web site You agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set out below. If you do not wish to be bound by these terms and conditions, You may not use the (name removed) web site.
Does this therefore carry no weight?
T&Cs
Tony - it all depends upon the specifics, but even where T&Cs don't create a contract between user and operator, they are still important: the licence to use the website set out in the T&Cs is still effective; disclaimers of liability in the T&Cs may still apply; and there will still be a requirement to make certain statutory disclosures (normally contained in the T&Cs).
For the purposes of our discussion, the copyright licence is the interesting bit. Copyright licences may be contractual or non-contractual. A non-contractual licence can carve out from the "realm" of infringement certain permitted acts, but it cannot then create collateral obligations in the same way as a contractual licence. An obligation not to republish information about bird watching sites would, in my view, be a collateral obligation.
Website concept
Hi,
If I had an idea for a website, put together from a few general (uncopyrightable) ideas, but the whole makes something new and exciting, what is the best way of protecting my idea, given that I would need help bringing it to life (at least 2 other people?)
Thanks,
Mr. S. Mysterious.
Protecting website ideas
Until the point of publication of the website, you could protect the idea as confidential information - only disclose it to those who have signed a confidentiality agreement. In a confidentiality agreement of this kind, it is common to include express restrictions upon the uses to which the information may be put, as well as obligations to keep the information secret.
If you are using an outside web development agency, you could ask for the insertion of a clause into their contract preventing them from working on competing websites for a period. In some circumstances you might be able to ask for an assignment of the copyright in the website code. Whilst this won't stop others copying your idea, it does help deal with the risk that your own developers could give the competition a boost.
Once the website is published, there will be little you can do to stop others copying the general idea. Common strategies in these circumstances are:
Whether these strategies are feasible will depend upon the specifics of your website and market.
The position may be different in other legal systems - for instance in the US software patents and business method patents can protect elements of a web application.
More
Hi Alasdair,
Thankyou for replying so quickly and thoroughly!
So I need the investment first before I launch it so we can be first to market (like FB or ebay..)
Hear you on the disclosure form, just typed one - simple but clear admission that they are about to hear all the concepts of the site, to keep it secret and that it is my creation( with a little humour.)
Have posted a usb stick (and paper notes) Recorded Delivery and deposited same with a local bank, but is it worth registering with the US Copyright office too? Will it not take too long? Am I not covered under the Berne Convention?
Thanks,
Sam.
US copyright registration
A registration with the US copyright office will help you if you need to enforce the relevant copyright in the US. Constitent with the "no formalities" rule in the Berne Convention, you do get copyright protection in the US without registration, but there are various advantages to registration. See page 7 of this document for details.
Materials copied then slightly modified
I own a training company in a very niche market. I have discovered a company that has copied my course descriptions / agendas, modified them SLIGHTLY here and there, and posted them as their own. I have contacted the owner of the site and his staff assures him they did not do this. However, they are trying to develop leads and then sell the business to me. If they deny doing this, but I can show the usage of exact wording (include specific punctuation (slashes, dashes, etc.), what is the likelihood that I can get them to stop. By the way, they are costing me thousands in Google Adwords by competing with me for my own content.
Slight modifications
If a text looks to an independent observer like it has been copied from another text, it usually has, and the courts will treat obvious similarity as evidence of copying. The key legal question in this sort of case is usually whether they have copied a "substantial part" of your work. A lawyer would need to compare the two texts to answer this question. Judging just from your brief description of the situation, I wouldn't be surprised if you had a case for copyright infringement here - and therefore the right to make them stop.
The AdWords T&Cs might also be of interest to you. Clause 10.1 in the UK version says:
A threat to report a contract breach to Google may be taken more seriously than a threat of full-blown copyright infringement proceedings - because it would be very much easier and less expensive.
Year of copyright
Hi. I have a website and I put the copyright symbol followed by the current year at the base of each page. I started writing/building it in 2006, so do have have to put "Copyright symbol 2006-2013 Co name" or can I just put "Copyright symbol 2013 Co name"???
Form of copyright notice
Hi Katie.
The "symbol / owner / year of first publication" style notice came into wide use as a result of the UCC:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/618051/Universal-Copyright-Con...
The UCC assumed that there was a single year of first publication - which is not usually the case with a website.
To strictly comply with the notice provisions of the UCC, you might need to put a different notice on each blog post etc.
However, because of the widespread adoption of the Berne Convention, the UCC is of limited importance now.
Accordingly, I don't think it matters greatly whether you use a range of years or a single year in your copyright notice.
Copyright in comments
Are comments on websites copyrighted? If I saw a comment on a website that I thought was funny or poignant and I used that in a blog I wrote, have I infringed on copyright? Who owns the comment on a website?
Comment copyright
In principle, comments on a website may be protected by copyright. To gain protection, the comments would need to "original" and surmount any de minimis principle in the relevant law. In English law, at least, these requirements aren't difficult to meet. For example, there is a good argument that this very comment is sufficiently original and substantial to get protection. However, a court would take a dim view of any attempt to enforce this copyright, because any loss I might suffer from someone copying the comment would be trivial.
The first owner of any copyright in a comment is the comment author. The website operator will usually ask for a licence to use the comments. If there is no express licence, then a licence can usually be implied.
Add new comment