X Close

Copyright Queries

Home

Menu

Archive for the 'Copyright news' Category

CLA data collection January 2020

Hazel MIngrey11 December 2019

The Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) will be conducting a photocopying data collection exercise at UCL in January 2020 for six weeks.

UCL holds a CLA Higher Education licence and it is part of our licence agreement that they occasionally undertake this survey; the last was held at UCL in 2010.  The purpose of the exercise is for the CLA to gather information to inform how they redistribute money to authors and publishers: it is also referred to as a ‘Royalties data’ exercise.

If you are a member of UCL staff who prepares teaching material for students, then this exercise is relevant to you!

The data collection involves a CLA field officer placing a large yellow box next to selected UCL MFDs (multi-functional devices), for teaching staff to drop in a copy of the item they are photocopying.  Near the box will be a notice to explaining the process, plus some sticky data labels.

  • If you are photocopying from a UCL MFD (not digitising);
  • for teaching purposes (for example making multiple copies to hand to students in class);
  • and from a published resource such as a book or journal, then:

Please take a photocopy of the identifying page of the text, e.g. the front page or the reverse side with copyright information on. The information needed is title, author, publisher details, ISSN, etc.  Complete a data label, stick it to the identifying page you have just photocopied;  post this into the yellow box.  Only the identifying page is needed, not the whole extract you are copying.

 

The collection will take place from 13th January to the 21st February 2020: the yellow boxes will start to appear from 6th January and will be removed in the week of 24th February.

There are some FAQs below.  If any questions are not addressed here, please don’t hesitate to contact Hazel Ingrey or UCL Copyright.

 

FAQs

Why is this exercise necessary?

The CLA use this data to inform their secondary royalty payments to authors and publishers. They collect data from all institutions that hold a CLA licence and use this to pay rights holders.

 

I don’t see a yellow CLA box next to my copier.

As UCL is so large, with in excess of 800 MFDs, ISD has assisted the CLA in making a representative selection of around 170 copiers.  If there is no CLA box you don’t need to participate in the data collection.

 

I don’t photocopy for my class, only use digital readings.  Do I need to submit any extra data?

No.  If you are linking to subscribed resources through your online reading list, you are not using any licence (indeed not even copying) and don’t need to report this.

If you are using the CLA licence by digitising through the TLS course readings service, then reporting requirements are already covered for you.

 

I am photocopying for my research, do I need to add a copy to the box?

No.  The CLA licence only covers copying for teaching purposes.  If you are copying for your own private study or research, and only making one copy for your use, then you don’t need to add anything to the box.  Your copying will likely fall under a CDPA copyright exception (for example s.29) instead.

 

Can I photocopy anything?

Only published material is relevant for this exercise.  In addition, you should always bear in mind what the CLA licence actually covers when copying readings for your class (in any format).

For reassurance you can use the TLS course readings service to double-check what is covered.  More details are on the library CLA information page; you can use the CLA ‘check permissions’ search (make sure you opt for the HE licence); and the CLA User Guidelines.

Whilst this is not an audit, the CLA will be aware from the collection data if you are breaching their licence.

 

Does a studypack count?

If you are photocopying a few readings to make up a studypack, then yes!  In fact you can right now submit any study packs online to the CLA Cloud. 

Login Name:    UCL                    Password: (Please email UCL Copyright for the password)

This will remain open until 21st February 2020.

 

Is there anything else we can do to prepare?

You could double-check that your local MFD has an up to date CLA notice poster near it, and that your colleagues are aware of the CLA licence.

 

I’m an author: how do I get paid secondary royalties from the CLA and other collecting societies?!

Salient question.  If you are an author you can join the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS).  There is a sign-up fee (currently £36) and this fee is deducted from your first royalty cheque.  ALCS also take commission.

 

How do I learn more about the CLA and other licences that UCL holds?

The library also manages the NLA and ERA licences.  Do get in touch for more information on using these in your teaching.

For an overview to using copyright works in teaching or research, the UCL Copyright Support Officer Chris Holland is very happy to visit your department or student class to deliver a quick session or answer questions!

 

 

CLA licence update

Hazel MIngrey10 December 2019

CLA logoThe Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) Higher Education licence enables staff at UCL to digitise or photocopy readings for teaching purposes.

It does not cover all published material, so there are some limits to be aware of. Full details of these limits and how the TLS team checks your readings can be found on the Course Readings webpage.

Every three years the licence is re-negotiated with the help of the UUK and Guild HE Copyright Negotiation and Advisory Committee (CNAC).  The new licence period is 2019-22 and in this round there were no major changes.  One new benefit has been that negotiations with RROs in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands resulted in these country’s materials being brought into the scanning repertoire.  Another new, useful feature is that CLA copies may be made for administrative purposes that are not readings on a named module, for example UCL staff training other UCL staff.  These copies must still adhere to the usual limits but don’t need to be reported.

The licence also allows some photocopying of readings with similar limits to digitising.  Photocopying data is not collected and reported; instead UCL is subject to occasional photocopying data collection surveys.

At UCL the administration of the CLA licence is handled by the library.  The TLS team copyright checks readings to ensure they fall under the CLA licence terms, before processing PDFs or photocopies into a copyright compliant scan, which is recorded and reported to the CLA annually. To take advantage of this service please look at the Course Readings webpage.   If readings aren’t recorded through the library they are not covered by the CLA licence.

In the year 2018-19 UCL reported in excess of 6,500 digitised readings, which were delivered to students through the relevant module’s online reading list.

There is already a great deal of high quality digitised material available, from e-books and e-journals to Open Access articles in UCL’s institutional respository and UCL Press, which mean that you can sidestep copying issues altogether. Linking to a resource in an online reading list using ReadingLists@UCL will give easy access for your students, whilst avoiding headaches about licensing for you.  You don’t need a licence or permission to link to legitimate or subscribed resources.

For more information please don’t hesitate to get in touch with the TLS team!

Library copyright exceptions: New SCONUL briefing paper

Chris JHolland5 December 2019

SCONUL have published a new briefing paper on the library exceptions to copyright with a very clear explanation of the exceptions which permit libraries to supply copies upon request to members of the public and to other not-for-profit libraries (broadly Sections 41 to 43 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988). The authors of the briefing are well known copyright experts, Jane Secker and Chris Morrison and the title is Copyright briefing paper on the Hargreaves exceptions

This serves as a useful reminder of the changes to the relevant exceptions which give more flexibility to library staff. Just to mention a few examples: we can now supply extracts from e-journals as well as print, while adhering to the terms of the exceptions, the article can also be delivered electronically (as Pdfs for example). Although declarations are still required when providing copies to individuals, they no longer need to be print nor do they need to be signed. The current legislation is also less prescriptive about the wording of the declaration (the briefing includes some useful sample wording for the latter).

The 3 concise case studies included in the briefing present useful examples of ways in which the new flexibility can be used by libraries to improve services to their academic communities. The SCONUL briefing gives us a clear explanation and a useful reminder about the updated library exceptions.

 

Joint Authorship: Recent case sheds light the test for joint authorship

Chris JHolland25 October 2019

A recent case heard by the Court of Appeal,  Kogan v. Martin sheds light on the test which the court needs to apply to decide whether someone is in fact a “joint author” of a work. Joint authors share ownership of the copyright in a work, so the decision whether someone’s contribution is sufficient to make them a joint author can have important consequences, especially if the work has a  significant commercial value. Kogan v. Martin concerns the authorship of the film script for Florence Foster Jenkins a feature film released in  2016. The test for someone to qualify as a joint author is examined in great detail in the Court of Appeal judgment and summarised very well in a post about the case on the IPKat blog

Interesting points which one can take away from this case:

  • It can be misleading to place too much importance on “who pushed the pen” when a collaborator contributing ideas for plot, scenes and characters to a dramatic or literary work can be equally entitled to be recognised as a joint author.
  • The test for authorship, influenced by important case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is whether the work is the expression of the person’s own intellectual creation.
  • One can make a smaller contribution but still be a “joint author” if one satisfies the test.

This is interesting in the academic context, where research papers are often published under the names of multiple authors.

 

 

Letters and copyright in the news

Chris JHolland9 October 2019

One of the issues faced regularly by archives which hold the correspondence of a prominent person is that the letters will have multiple copyright owners. Copyright in a letter belongs to the author and typically there will be many authors. This becomes an issue when you need permission to digitise or publish letters from the archive.

The ownership of copyright in letters has been thrown into the spotlight by the legal action brought by Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex against Associated Newspapers with regard to the alleged publication of private correspondence in the Sunday Mail. Infringement of copyright is one of the claims, perhaps the main claim.

The underlying copyright issues are discussed in depth here on the IPKat blog including the difficulty the newspaper might have if they try to claim their use of the letters was covered by one of the exceptions to copyright contained within Section 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), which deals with “fair dealing” for the purpose of criticism, review and quotation more generally. The difficulty for the publisher is that the letters in question must have been previously “made available to the public” with permission of the copyright owner (the Duchess in this case), otherwise the exception does not apply (by virtue of CDPA Sub Section 30,1ZA,a). It seems unlikely they could claim that this condition has been fulfilled.

Although copyright is often in the headlines with respect to the music business it is less common to find copyright in unpublished literary works featuring so prominently.

 

 

Kraftwerk sampling in the Court of Justice of the European Union

Chris JHolland30 July 2019

Members of the veteran electronic music group, Kraftwerk (Ralf Hütter and Florian Schneider-Esleben) have an answer from the CJEU to their claim that copying extracts from their recordings to be used in other musical recordings in the form of “sampling” should only be carried out with their permission. The case which concerns the sampling of a brief extract from their song “Metall auf Metall” which was then played as a continuous loop in a 1999 song produced by Moses Pelham and Martin Haas and performed by Sabrina Setlur called “Nur mir”. The CJEU case number is C-476/17.

The court ruled  that in terms of EU copyright law, particularly the Information Society Directive, sampling from someone else’s recording generally requires permission, because it is a reproduction “in whole or in part” of the original work.

On the other hand, if the extract sampled has been modified to the extent that it is not recognisable as the original work (“unrecognisable to the ear”), then that would be justifiable in terms of  Article 13 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which deals with freedom of artistic expression. Can we conclude that the sampling of Metall auf Metall in the production of Nur Mir would be covered by the latter proviso? After all, the sample consists of a 2 second rhythm sequence, which is arguably not recognisable as the original work (even though it might sound strangely familiar to a really dedicated admirer of Kraftwerk’s music).

This decision could have far reaching implications for the music industry, given that sampling is a widely used technique, particularly in Hip-Hop recordings and that producers are not always in the habit of assiduously seeking permission from the copyright owners of the original recording. The judgment of the CJEU can be found here.   The case itself is also something of a “veteran” as Kraftwerk have been pursuing it for some 20 years.

 

Author power

Chris JHolland21 June 2019

An interesting  blog post by Shaun Khoo on the Scholarly Kitchen website takes a sceptical look at whether academic authors are likely to gain more leverage in an open access publishing environment.  With current publishing models, the publisher is generally in a more powerful position and the author at a disadvantage in any negotiation. Is that likely to change?

Shaun Khoo quotes some research carried out in the USA by Charbonneau and McGlone the results of which show that 97.8% of the relevant faculty members simply signed the agreement “as is”.

When delivering copyright training to groups of post-graduates I usually stress the importance of reading the terms and conditions of publishing agreements very carefully before signing on the dotted line.

The issue is that the pressure to get their work published in the “high impact” journals in their field leads authors to disregard questions of whether they are assigning copyright to the publisher and, if so, whether the agreement grants them any specific concessions to reuse their own work in ways that they might wish to in the future.

One should underline the importance of being prepared to the negotiate the details with the publisher if there are terms they object to or don’t fully understand. A student recently pointed out  (wisely I think) that, if an author is intending to negotiate, they had better start at as early a stage as possible, before time pressures take over.

On the other hand open access publishing models which apply Creative Commons licences do certainly allow academic authors to retain ownership of the copyright in their papers and with it the freedom to reuse their own work as they wish.

 

EU Directive: Copyright in the Digital Single Market

Chris JHolland4 April 2019

The new copyright directive, the DSM Directive is nearing the completion of its long journey through the EU legislative  procedure. The latest version, has been approved by the European Parliament and now goes back to the Council. Previously there were very few mandatory exceptions to copyright in EU legislation. One of the important aspects of the DSM Directive is that it introduces a number of exceptions which are indeed mandatory for all member states, departing from the smorgasbord approach of the previous Infosoc Directive which presented a number of exceptions from which member states could pick and choose.

The new exceptions, such as Text and Data Mining exception and Preservation exception are generally favourable to libraries and research. The UK is already ahead of the game to some extent, for example in having a TDM exception, but in some cases the DSM exceptions would enhance and go further than what we have already and also have the advantage of operating across borders within the EU.

It is a moot point whether the DSM Directive will ever be implemented in the UK  or whether the timing of Brexit will prevent that happening.

Spare Rib and the threatened EU Orphan works exception

Chris JHolland26 February 2019

Back in October we blogged about the threat posed to the the EU Orphan works exception by a no deal Brexit and the LACA campaign to highlight the issue.

A recent article in the Guardian highlights a concrete example of the effect of the removal of the exception, namely the case of the digital archive of content from Spare Rib, a ground-breaking feminist magazine. The Spare Rib archive has been made available online by the British Library (BL) using the Orphan works exception to good effect.

In the event of a “no deal Brexit” however the BL, in common with other cultural institutions, will no longer have the benefit of this exception simply because it can be enjoyed only by institutions in the EU (and the EEA) which, obviously, will no longer include the UK. Orphan works will no longer be covered by the exception and UK institutions such as the BL will be obliged to take down this very significant content to avoid the risk of copyright infringement.

The current process of vetting applications for orphan work status, moreover, is an EU process, run by EUIPO. The UK IPO could in principle establish a UK procedure to replace that run by EUIPO for the benefit of UK institutions, but seems to have no current intentions of doing so.  You can read what the IPO has to say about copyright and a no deal Brexit  here

No copyright protection for the taste of cheese

Chris JHolland19 December 2018

The Court of Justice of the EU was recently asked to rule on whether the taste of a food could be a “work” in terms of the EU Directive on copyright in the information society (Directive 2001/29/EC). If a taste could be a work then it could in principle be protected by copyright. The context was a case  for infringement brought by Levola Hengelo BV, manufacturer of a cheese called Heksenkaas against a rival food company, Smilde Foods BV, manufacturers of Witte Wievenkaas (C310/17).

As reported by the Kluwer copyright blog,the court ruled that taste of a cheese could not be regarded as a “work” for copyright purposes because it was a requirement that the subject matter of a “work” must be represented in a manner that makes it identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity and the taste of Heksenkaas did not meet those criteria. So is that a case of hard cheese for Heksenkaas?