Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom

This talk page may have a limited number of watchers. Issues concerning the copyright rules of the United Kingdom may get more attention if a notice of the discussion here is given at a general page like Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory or Commons talk:Freedom of panorama.

Educational use

Even if it's of no particular help to Commons, it would be good if this page included some information about "educational use" -- I frequently see questions about how UK law handles educational use, and whether it applies to Commons and similar project. It would be good to have a definitive assessment of that question here. Unfortunately I don't think I'm qualified to provide it! -Pete F (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

crown copyright

UK crown copyright seems quite open, what if anything is stopping us from accepting such files here? WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the page you've linked refers only to {{OGL}}, not to all Crown Copyright files. From within that page:

"The Controller invites public sector bodies owning their own copyright and database rights to permit the use of their Information under this licence."

So this is an option for public sector bodies with authority over stuff covered by Crown Copyright; not a statement about Crown Copyright on the whole.

I think. -Pete F (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, see this page which is linked from within the template. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

i agree, this is an open initiative, which we can work with going forward. should definately give a shout out during wikimania. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 23:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Lego

Discussing Lego bricks (w:Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc) in the Threshold of originality section is a distraction. I can't conceive of a situation where this specific ruling could be relevant to anything a Commons editor might want to do. --134.157.254.96 13:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this, that case specifically looks at whether the design in question had aesthetic appeal above its functionality, this doesn't really apply to files/images uploaded here. It would be good to have more information on cases where a logo or similar *has* been ruled as unoriginal enough to not qualify for copyright (if any exist) so that we can better tell where the line is. --SilentSpike (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Work of artistic craftsmanship

The Intellectual Property Office collected some info in https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606207/160408_guidance_s52_final_web_accessible.pdf .--Roy17 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

Hi I'd like to edit this page and this page doesn't seem so busy, so I put a question at Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory#UK_Freedom_of_panorama. Mujinga (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Patent drawings

@Rd232 and Jacklee: In a 2012 discussion, it was claimed that there is no "special exemption from copyright for patent drawings under UK law". This does not quite seem to be true. According to the Intellectual Property Office, patent documents filed both before and after the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 may be used for "disseminating information", though not for "selling them on" or for "marketing or sales":

Copyright in these belongs to the Crown but in normal circumstances no steps would be taken to enforce that copyright (notice of this was given in our Official Journal (Patents) on 25 June 1969). You would be allowed to copy these patent specifications freely but on the understanding that if the privilege is abused, for instance by copying for the purpose of selling them on, then the government may take action.

As for specifications published on or after 1 August 1989, the applicant holds a copyright on the patent materials, but:

The copying and issuing of copies to the public of patent specifications for the purposes of ‘disseminating information’ is also not an infringement of copyright. A notice of this general authorisation of such copying appeared in our Official Journal on 5 December 1990.

This means that you may freely copy UK patent specifications for the purpose of ‘disseminating the information contained in them’. If you were to copy the whole or a substantial part of the specification for any other purposes, such as marketing or sales, this could be an infringement of the copyright (unless the use fell within one of the exceptions to copyright).

This is summarized in the relevant Wikipedia article.

Unfortunately, the Commons licensing requirements are very strict, and only allow media "that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."

I will check on Wikipedia to see if such conditions are acceptable there. --Macrakis (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Coin copyright

I've made a slight change to make clear what the sources seem to actually say, that Crown Copyright of coins follows the design year, rather than the year of issue of a coin. In other words, for example, the reverse of a 2000 sovereign is just as out of copyright as a 1900 one, the two being identical but for the date (it was designed in 1817).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I think that's correct in general, but I'd be a little cautious about the sovereign in particular: as I recall the reverse design has been tweaked over the years and it's possible that some of those tweaks exceed the threshold of originality. --bjh21 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, they have played with the streamer behind George's helmet over the years. The version issued since 2009 doesn't have a streamer but that is the same as the version issued from 1821 to 1887. See the discussion here--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Bank of England banknotes

I think the claim in the current page that Bank of England banknotes "are instances of Crown Copyright" is wrong. While the Bank is owned by the government, it's still a corporation in its own right[2], having I think been incorporated under section XIX of the Bank of England Act 1694[3]. Crown copyright only applies to works made by servants of the Crown and (before 1988) works first published by the Crown, neither of which is applicable to Bank of England notes. This is why banknotes are marked "© The Governor and Company of the Bank of England <date>" rather than "© Crown copyright <date>" as would be conventional for Crown works. --bjh21 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bjh21: There's a recent discussion that doesn't get consensus on changing the situations. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That didn't relate to whether Bank of England notes were covered by Crown copyright, but only to whether the restrictions imposed by the Bank were light enough to constitute a free licence. Since it seemed to be decided that they weren't, the question of whether Bank of England notes are in copyright for 50 years or for 70 is still an interesting one. --bjh21 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Since no-one has objected, I've split the currency section to reflect my understanding that the Bank of England is not a Crown body. I've also made a small adjustment to reflect the fact that coins are sculptures. --bjh21 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright law updated

The UK copyright law is now updated, with WIPO copy at [4]. Called "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Chapter 48, updated up to November 26, 2020)." I glanced to the FOP section (Section 62), and fortunatly it is still similar and adequate for Wikimedia. Unsure about other rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Usage of graphic works

Posters and stickers made by a charity to inform the public are educational. Protecting 'graphic works ('any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work' by the Act has been done in order o protect the owner's potential financial gain. Posters and stickers have a very different purpose. Unfortunately, we are gagging charities and movements under this same same rule. Can we not differentiate between "graphics for disseminating information", and "graphics with potential marketing or sales value"? The benchmark could be: is there a potential loss of earnings to the owner? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The rules here are an interpretation of UK law. Unless you can show that the law has been misinterpreted then your comments should be directed at an MP to lobby for a change in the law. If a publisher of "graphics for disseminating information" wanted a work to be available with a free license then they could assign that license to it, and publish it on their website or elsewhere. You could contact these organisations to urge them to do this, but you would probably find that they are reluctant. Many (or most) organisations want to control their public image, and the law of copyright is one way for them to do this. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, and yes branding and public image comes into it. The list of 'graphic works' does not include either posters or stickers, and as far as I know not one person has been taken to court for placing an image of a text only notification poster or sticker on Wikipedia or any other webiste. A text only time table for trains was taken down, with no branding, and last week a poster with no logo, just information where, what, when? I think we've misinterpreted not only the letter of the law here but also it's raison d'être and spirit as there's no potential loss of earnings. But, yes, movements, charities etc should be uploading their stuff onto Commons as well. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on your description, these might have been public domain on the basis of {{PD-text}}. Our admins are not infallible and mistakes are sometimes made. Or were they deleted under the 'project scope' rules, which exclude "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text"? The copyright rules should be based on what the law actually says (and on case law), not on the supposed motivations of the legislators. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, and thanks. I take it {{PD-text}} would over-rule COM:FOP UK. A good interpretation of the law! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Images of buildings always OK in UK surely?

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Freedom of Panorama Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows, in the UK, Freedom of Panorama for buildings and ... without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way.. Now I can read this as its okay to take & upload to commons an image of a building even if it has a graffiti/mural on it. I particularly noticed Dbarge's File:RunElectricCinema.jpg & File:ROA Streetart.JPG and was aware of images in for example Category:Bogside murals. I therefore recently uploaded * File:Via Ravenna underpass building art.jpg, File:Chichester College cabin crew training aircraft.jpg (cropable), File:Chichester College building art and passenger aircraft nose.jpg. However tracking something else on English Wikipedia I happened across Melissa Highton's Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ross Blair – Frederick Douglass.jpg and argued for a keep. (As it happen's the image has some fame but believe it or not, most won't, I hadn't really picked that up at the time). Admin Ruthven deleted the image, but did not close the deletion discussion, which was done by Rosenzweig. I'd like the seeming inconsistencies resolved to my satisfaction. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: As I've answered you at User_talk:Ruthven#Ross_Blair_–_Frederick_Douglass.jpg: the file was without a VRTS permission from 2 months (a permission has been asked to the author on September 2021). Thus, it has been deleted. --Ruthven (msg) 20:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: The problem is that a mural is seen as a graphic work, and graphic works aren't covered by section 62. In more detail, section 4 lists various different kinds of artistic work, including a graphic work, which includes a painting, and a work of architecture, which includes a building, which in turn includes a part of a building. Section 62 then lists some of these kinds of work as being covered by FoP, including buildings, but not including any kind of graphic work. So if the mural is part of a building (and hence a work of architecture) then it's covered by FoP, but if it's a painting (and hence a graphic work) then it isn't. I think there's a good argument that a mural that merely treats a building as a flat canvas is a separate work from the building itself, and hence not covered by the building's FoP. --bjh21 (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@bjh21: Forgive me for being so bold, butit does not precisely seem to say buildings but excluding buildings with murals. From once there is a building in public, they it remains available to be photographed? I am not a specialist but it seems wrong, but I understand commons may need/wish to err on the safe side of a breach? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Indeed, section 62 doesn't explicitly mention murals. But the thing is, section 62(2) only talks about the "copyright in such a work" not being infringed, where "such a work" is one of the kinds listed in section 62(1). So if you take a photograph of a building then the copyright in the building is not infringed. But the mural painted on a wall of the building is a separate work, so it's possible that the copyright in the mural might be infringed, and section 62 doesn't save you from that. Your only hope is to argue that the mural is "a part of a building" (section 4(2)), but I think that also requires it to be "a work of architecture" (section 4(1)(b)), which it obviously isn't. Treating the mural as a "graphic work" (section 4(1)(a)) and specifically a "painting" (section 4(2)(a)) seems much more natural to me. --bjh21 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@bjh21: Well I might feel I'm right but in the end there's a presumption to safe-side on commons. If that's the way its going, then I'll have a handful of my own photo's I need to nom. for deletion, but I'll be doing a few in Chichester/Havant and maybe bogside as well so I'd like to be very certain I've made a good stab at trying to keep stuff. Also because I've been seriously mislead at the village pump before ... (perhaps my fault but in the end I took it to load some images, at some expense, that were subsequently not OK) and because the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ross Blair – Frederick Douglass.jpg delete/discussion was not "clean" I'll probably take it through an undelete. I'll feel better if I but something up for delete if I do. & If I had spare money to buy (Bonadio,2019, "The Cambridge handbook of copyright in street art and graffiti", Chapter 10, oclc/1097611235) I might .. but I haven't. Thanks for for time. Thanks. 00:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC) (Djm-leighpark)

I was very inclined to do a test undelete of File:Ross Blair – Frederick Douglass.jpg to totally confirm the murals are unacceptable, as I really would like to do that step before nominating images breaching copyright for deletion (by others). In the end I have an aim to remain compliant with Copyright to the best of my ability. But I've been and am and likely will involved in a number of discussion drama threads and many might see me do this step as disruptive. So as I think there will only be one result currently I have decided to skip it as there's only one probable result with 99% certainty. I am at least vaguely aware of graffiti type arguments and will probably not nominate marginals from deletion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Thank you for that reference. An advantage of working for a University is that I've got on-line access to The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright in Street Art and Graffiti through our library. Section 10.5, “Street Art and the Freedom of Panorama Exception”, is pretty clear on the matter: The freedom of panorama exception does not extend to graphic works such as drawings and paintings, though, which means that creating and distributing photos (for instance, in a photographic book), videos or broadcasts that incorporate pieces such as murals, stickers, posters and cutouts placed in public places, or in premises open to the public, would amount to copyright infringement if no authorisation is obtained from the copyright owner. There's no mention of the idea that "building" might cover murals. The sentence has a reference to a related article (Iljadica, Marta (2017). "Copyright and the right to the city". Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 68 (1): 59–80. ISSN 0029-3105.), but that article doesn't really add anything. --bjh21 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Coins again

Yann removed the "not" from "Publishing images of coins is not prohibited by the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981." I've reverted that change because I think the original statement is correct. The Act forbids possession of counterfeit coins, but a counterfeit coin is something that "resembles a ... protected coin (whether on one side only or on both) to such an extent that it is reasonably capable of passing for a ... protected coin" (FCA s28). Obviously, I'm unlikely to be able to pay with a JPEG of a pound coin in my local shop, so it's not a counterfeit coin. The reference to section 19 is a bit of a red herring: that's not really a counterfeiting provision and doesn't actually refer to reproducing the faces of a coin at all. --bjh21 (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bjh21: This sentense is contradictory with the rest of the text. Also there is a bold Not OK at the start of the section. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: There is no contradiction. The sentence in question says that one specific Act of Parliament does not forbid the production of images of coins. This is true. Other parts of the text explain why other laws (particularly copyright law) do restrict making images of coins. The Not OK at the top is a two-word summary of the text, and obviously can't capture all the subtleties of the law.

Looking at it, I think the entire paragraph starting "Publishing images of coins" could usefully be deleted. Explaining that a particular law doesn't affect Commons is not a very useful thing to do and is a good way of causing confusion (as here). --bjh21 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

MOD Crown Copyright News / Editorial Licence

I'm not sure how new/old this is, but would it be useful to include this in the list to make sure people know about it? It seems to be a non-free license incompatible with Commons. It seems to be fairly new, as the message in the license says, "version 1.0 applies from August 2023."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crown-copyright-mod-news-licence/mod-crown-copyright-news-editorial-licence

- Fuzheado (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there an exception from the rule of the shorter term for US works under UK copyright law?

During my research for my post in the WMF blog for this year's Public Domain Day, I came across the odd fact that because of an 1892 agreement between Germany and the United States (de:), German copyright law disregards the rule of the shorter term for (some) US works.

This yields to the odd result that the 1928 Disney classic Steamboat Willie, while still being protected in the United States, remains protected under German copyright law.

Could it be that the same applies to UK copyright law because of a similar agreement?

I am cross-posting my question here – please respond at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you! --Gnom (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)