Copyright question

[BTB 500]

A UK organisation I'm involved with produces a monthly magazine for its members. An article in the current issue has provoked much interest on a web Forum, and scanned copies are being emailed around.

The magazine does not currently contain a copyright statement - does that make the distribution of scanned content OK?

Just to be clear, this is for interest only! Any comment/advice is not going to form the basis for a big law case

 

[wemorgan]

My understanding, and I accept this may be 100% incorrect, is that all documents with an authors name are automatically copyrighted, even without the copyright symbol and statement.

edit: some useful info here

 

[crockers]

I am sure you will find the answer online -- I think the current legislation is covered under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It may have been upgraded but I'm not sure..

 

[Dieselman]

I'm pretty sure wemorgan is correct with his post but it would be nice for the author to gain some recognition for their work.

If they are happy for the material to be reproduced without royalties why not in future add a disclaimer to say that is can be reproduced FOC as long as the author/magazine is recognised as the original author.

 

[st13phil]

When I was Chairman of a national motorcycle club we looked hard at this as we published a club magazine. As wemorgan has posted already, assuming there is an element of originality to the work then the author automatically holds copyright. Enforcing the right is another matter entirely, though.

If the scans have been published on a forum or a website, then simply contacting the site or forum owner and informing them that they are illegally hosting copyright material is normally enough to get reasonable people to take the material down. If they are unreasonable people you may have to take formal action.

If it is people emailing copies of an article around from one to the next then in practical terms it is going to be very difficult to stop it. It's a bit like somone photocopying a page or two from a book and giving it to a couple of people who do the same again, and again, and again...

 

[BTB 500]

Many thanks for the comments.

There's not really any money at stake here ... columnists typically just get free membership rather than being paid anything, and the organisation as a whole (including the magazine) aims to break even rather than make a profit.

At the moment the scans are only being passed around 'privately' between forum members, rather than being posted for download.

It was more the principle I was interested in, and whether we ought to include some sort of copyright statement in future. Seems this is not really needed?

 

[ringway]

I'm pretty sure wemorgan is correct with his post but it would be nice for the author to gain some recognition for their work.

If they are happy for the material to be reproduced without royalties why not in future add a disclaimer to say that is can be reproduced FOC as long as the author/magazine is recognised as the original author.

Does this mean many forum members are in trouble using certain avatars

 

[crockers]

Does this mean many forum members are in trouble using certain avatars

Only if they are from the darkside...

 

[ringway]

Only if they are from the darkside...

Thank you kind sir

 

[Marque]

A copyright statement is only important if you want to enforce it in the USA and perhaps one or two other places. However, reminding people that they shouldn't copy something without first getting the owner's permission is a good idea anyway.

 

[Mr E]

I've always found that the nicest way is to include a statement, but to say that for non-commercial use it can be distributed as long as the source (website and author) in included.

 

[flango]

I am an occasional columnist on a couple of Industry magazines and copyright for the articles published lies with the owner of the magazine and not the individual (In this particular case) As you sign a disclaimer giving ownership to the magazine and then they publish the caveat that the views represented are solely that of the author and not the orgainisation the author works for or the magazine.

 

[C240Sport97]

I am an occasional columnist on a couple of Industry magazines and copyright for the articles published lies with the owner of the magazine and not the individual (In this particular case) As you sign a disclaimer giving ownership to the magazine and then they publish the caveat that the views represented are solely that of the author and not the orgainisation the author works for or the magazine.

these are 2 separate issues.

the first is who owns the right to make copies or publish the article. that is a matter between the author and the publisher. there is no reason why the author cannot retain copyright if he/she was able to negotiate it.

the second is about responsibility (or rather the lack thereof) for the contents of the article. the magazine is happy to publish but does not want anyone to assume that it agrees with or endorses the content. again, very standard

 

[flango]

these are 2 separate issues.

the first is who owns the right to make copies or publish the article. that is a matter between the author and the publisher. there is no reason why the author cannot retain copyright if he/she was able to negotiate it.

the second is about responsibility (or rather the lack thereof) for the contents of the article. the magazine is happy to publish but does not want anyone to assume that it agrees with or endorses the content. again, very standard

Sorry maybe I was not clear. I totally agree there is no reason why the author can't retain copyright, I was just speaking about the magazines I deal with where it is a condition you sign over copyright to them.

Also totally agree with you on the second point as you say very standard

 

[dougal74]

It was more the principle I was interested in, and whether we ought to include some sort of copyright statement in future. Seems this is not really needed?

Necessary, no but my advice would be to clarify things with a simple statement. On the positive side, because many years from now someone might want to reuse the works and will seek to clear them (from whom - author, magazine etc.?) and on the negative side because the mag or indeed the author might want to enforce their moral/creative rights and a statement will help in this process.