MEETING

REPORT

Copyright in a changing world

Do you remember Charlotte Proudman? She was the barrister who

criticised a senior lawyer, Alexander Carter-Silk, for sending her a sexist
private message on Linked In. Charlotte then tweeted a picture of it. Had
she used any other form of social or printed media to publicise CarterSilks message she would probably have been acting illegally: breaching
his copyright. Re-posting private correspondence is only one example of
the impact copyright can have on our lives. And why we all need to be
aware of its implications.

Our October evening meeting featured a talk by Professor Charles

Oppenheim on why an understanding of copyright basics is important for
everyone. The venue was the British Computer Societys excellent Covent
Garden premises; the event was run jointly with their
Business Information Systems Specialist Group.
Professor Oppenheims professional interests range from legal aspects of
information to the future of scholarly publishing. He has held posts in both
academia and publishing, receiving major awards for services to the
information world. Amongst his many abilities are a knack of finding
amusing examples to bring dry topics to life and being able to explain
difficult subjects with clarity and brevity. Both were very ably exhibited in
this talk.
Charles began by recalling the origins of his interest in intellectual
property as Director of R&D for Derwent Publications, the well-known
producer of secondary services for patent specialists and later at Rubber
world (surely, a candidate for Have I got news for yous zany magazine of
the week!).
Charles defined copyright as the right to prevent others from copying, or
from doing certain other things with, ones material. It applies to virtually
all formats: literary, musical or artistic works, as well as sound and audiovisual recordings each of which, under English law, has subtly different
traditions and rules. Computer-generated outputs are considered to have
been created by the programmer. Copyright does not imply literary merit!
Charles focussed on literary works (hand-written, printed or in machinereadable form including original web content). He emphasised that a
claim to copyright must both involve novelty (i.e. it cant be a copy) and
have been created by a human (rather than, for example, a robot or a
monkey). While collections of facts may have copyright, there is no such

right in individual ideas, facts or brief items. Unpublished orphan works

are especially problematic.
While copyright generally lasts for seventy years from the creators death,
certain unpublished works (e.g. historically- or culturally-important medival
manuscripts) have an extended expiration of 2039. Some librarians and
archivists criticise this rule, but the only British political parties to have
campaigned for a change have been the Green and Pirate parties.

Charles zipped through the key concepts ownership, permission and licensing,
expiration, infringement, web links, risk-management, open-access and the
exceptions, such as fair dealing. He ended with a summary of post-2014 legal
changes.
Is Charles optimistic about the future? No. Rights owners are becoming more
aggressive, while the law is unable to keep up with social and technical
developments. Yet, there is little evidence that stricter laws encourage
innovation.
Speakers who bring handouts are always popular. Charles excelled: everyone
received his Powerpoints plus a fascinating report*. Perhaps Charlotte should
have read these before circulating a private message!

*Is true copyright reform a practical proposition? A shortened version of an article by

Andy, on 8 October 2015. http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk,
Ralph Adam
22.12.2015