Talk:Copyright law of the United Kingdom

Media shifting.

ISTR a case where a user was allowed to make copies of CDs to comapct cassette for the purpose of listening to them in his car. This is important case law, but I have no details. Anyone? Rich Farmbrough 13:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Commercial links

I don't think the link to a service to store evidence of originality belongs in this article, but if it does, it should at least make clear that the site does not and cannot offer copyright, any more than it can offer air.

You are correct, commercial links do NOT belong here. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on paintings

The article does not cover (at least not explicitly) paintings. For example, are Van Gogh's paintings still covered by copyright?

Yes it does cover paintings. Paintings are artistic works. Look at the copyright length chart PDFs linked to at the end of the article for a quick summary. As for van Gogh, anything published more than 50 years ago is now out of copyright. Anything unpublished is still in copyright. David Newton 20:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i don't get it, 50 years is for Crown Copyright (according to the pdf's), so shouldn't ordinary copyright apply to Van Gogh? I know nobody has questioned this for 2 years, so it is probably correct, but why is it correct?

haydn--82.11.249.149 (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case Studies (music CDs, film DVDs Software)

I think this article would benefit from a brief overview on the consumers rights as regards ownership of CDs, DVDs and Software in the UK, or possibly a link to another article dealing with this subject.Fergie 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you really mean by that statement. If you mean that rights possessed by users of CDs, DVDs and computer programs that are copyrighted to copy those materials then it is already covered within the article in the section on fair dealing. There is more that could be put in the fair dealing section but the bits of fair dealing covered deal with things like the extra rights that schools, libraries and archives get to copy material, ie not fair dealing rights that apply to the ordinary person or that the ordinary person is likely to encounter. That makes those extra fair dealing rights a much weaker candidate for inclusion in the article. David Newton 01:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to mention some of the "rights" that people often think they have but don't. For example, a CD copied to an MP3 player is an infringing copy. As is the transient copy created when you play an imported DVD on a multi-region DVD player. Reilly 22:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the legal analysis that I have read suggests that this is not the case, but this is an example of the kind of information that is needed in the article.--Fergie 12:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? ouch. I definately think that should be in the article. Definately include a link to a pressure group trying to change this.

Sign the petition to the PM here. Reilly 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if you make that section, and someone really should, it should also mention if people have the right to remove copyright protection and Digital Rights Management on stuff they own. E.G. can I remove this game's requirement for the CD to be inserted for no other reason than the convience to play the game without a CD.

september 2006

Manuscript transcription

Suppose a book were published for the first time posthumously, would the person doing the transcription from the original manuscript be in a position to claim copyright on that transcription? And if so, would it be life + 70 years? Ric Zanelli 13 June 2006

If it was a simple transcription then no new copyright would arise over the words of the work. Copyright could be claimed for the typographical arrangement of the publication and would run for 25 years from year of publication. David Newton 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]