pilots-n-planes Or Copyright? What's that?

[Billy_Bishop]

I think I'm on his side. He's just an enthusiast who wants to share the information he has with anyone who is interested, which is really what the great www should be all about IMO. There is no profit motive and I seriously doubt he is harming anyones sales significantly. There are millions of sites like this one, my own included, and I have the conceit to say the web would be the poorer *without them

Ok Peter, but WHO'S side are you on? David's, or Ira's???

In my humble opinion, I don't have a problem with David's site. As I said before, I didn't see many if any copyright claims on his site. But on Ira Boucher's site, his copyright claim is on every page, almost. This includes the material that apparently came from here.

THAT is wrong. As it is, he barely recognizes The Aerodrome. Even though, apparently much of "his" work was "inspired" by this site.

Spreading the information, I have no problem with. Claiming it as his own original work, I do.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Billy_Bishop]

Is there something wrong with this thread? I seem to be having trouble posting to it.

Al

[Droops]

Well I know that my Red Baron squadron uses some images from here. That started back in 1998, and I'd always assumed that the first person who grabbed those did ask. At any rate, all of the medals that our site uses are referenced as to their original source.

I've also taken some posts here and saved them. Not pictures, but posts. An example would be some of the posts on the missions of two-seaters or multiple-seat aircraft. I've got a running collection of those posts. Same with posts on obscure aircraft, like the Ago CI.

Much of my collecting is/was done with an eye towards making a new WWI flight sim. Were I to go forward with this dream, I wouldn't post anything that I'd gathered for public consumption. If information were clearly proprietary, I would ask permission before making it publicly available. I WOULD use it though in private, for development purposes. My current job in the federal government gives me a lot of access to business proprietary information. Therefore, I'm sensitive to distribution and use that might be illegal or, at best, dishonest.

I don't like sites that copy without permission, or at the very least a link and acknowledgment.

John

[Vigilant]

The basic rule on copyright in the UK is that it subsists for 'Life of author + 50 years'. After that time, the work becomes a public domain document that anyone can use.

If the identity of the author is unknown (for instance, perhaps a picture postcard) the copyright subsists for 50 years after it first became available to the public. There is no infringement of copyright if it is not possible by reasonable enquiry to ascertain the identity of the author AND it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired OR that the author died more than 50 years ago.

There is a presumption that the first publisher of the work owned the copyright if the identity of the author is really unknown.

The fact that the infringer has not made a profit is irrelevant to the question of damages (ie compensation) because the court can take into account any lost sales that the copyright holder may have suffered as a result of the free distribution of the work. However, the copyright holder needs to show (on the balance of probabilities) that the infringer knew that copyright did subsist in the work to be entitled to damages. He can still get an injunction/account for profits regardless of proving this mental element.

The defence of 'fair dealing' allows the use of part of the work in a new work for the purposes of criticism or illustration. But using the quote to convey the same information as the original will not be fair dealing - particularly if the new work competes for market share with the original work. Each example of alleged fair dealing will be judged on its own facts. Considerations for the court include:- (1) Purpose - eg private study or republication? (2) Proportion - 5% or 50% of original work used? (3) Motive - does the new work compete with the old? (4) Status of old work - ie confidential or published? In any case of fair dealing, 'sufficient acknowledgement' must be given of the old work. This means title and author.

Source - Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 and caselaw

Hope this helps.

Vigilant (CPE, LPC, Trainee Solicitor)
Small print - You would be foolish to rely on something posted to an internet forum for WWI aviation as a substitute for individual legal advice.

Vig,

>is that it subsists for 'Life of author + 50
>years'.

Australian and American copyright law both have a subsistance that includes a period from first publication or death of author+. Whichever come first. Does the UK have that or is tied only to the content creators (content owner?) death.

What about Crown created works, such as RFC CITARs, Reports etc?



cam