Dr Alcock
'Literary' in copyright terms means written, not a work of literature. Thus
literary copyright may subsist in an exam paper, a football pools coupon, a
catalogue, a railway timetable, a report to the Board or a letter as much as
in a novel. It must be reasonably substantial (thus a single word, a book
title, a company name or indeed your own name, would not qualify) and must
consist of some form of expression or arrangement rather than be mere facts.
Thus the fact that a train leaves at 12.30 and arrives at 13.00 is not
copyright, but the assemblage of times of all the trains, as set out in the
timetable, is. Similarly, there is no copyright in the name Elvis Presley,
but there is copyright in the written affidavits setting out their arguments
by the firms which disputed the point in court.
Tim
---------------
Tim Padfield
Copyright Officer
Curator of Photographs
Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records
Public Record Office
Tel: 020-8876 3444 ext 2351
Fax: 020-8392 5295
> ----------
> From: DR N W ALCOCK[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 21 January 2000 11:47
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: copyright in manuscripts
>
> Thank you
> Where does that leave an archive manuscript that is not obviously
> literary?
> Nat Alcock
> >
> > It applies to literary, dramatic and musical works created before 1
> August
> > 1989, under the terms of s7(6) of the Copyright Act 1956, by virtue of
> the
> > Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 sch 1 para 16(a), ie including
> > diaries. It does not apply to artistic works unless they are
> illustrations
> > accompanying the text (1956 s7(9), 1988 sch 1 para 16).
> >
> > Tim
> > ---------------
> > Tim Padfield
> > Copyright Officer
> > Curator of Photographs
> > Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records
> >
> > Public Record Office
> > Tel: 020-8876 3444 ext 2351
> > Fax: 020-8392 5295
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: DR N W ALCOCK[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Reply To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Sent: 21 January 2000 11:05
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: RE: copyright in manuscripts
> > >
> > > Tim Padfield's response about copyright in diaries, includes:
> > >
> > > > If the diary was created before 1 August 1989; the author is known
> to
> > > have
> > > > been dead for more than 50 years; the diary is more than 100 years
> old;
> > > and
> > > > the present copyright owner is unknown to the publisher, the diary
> may
> > > be
> > > > published without permission.
> > >
> > > Presumably this applies to all manuscript material - as far as I
> > > remember,
> > > this important qualification wasn't stated in the latest Copyright
> leaflet
> > > I
> > > looked at (from Worcestershire RO, I think - with apologies if
> incorrect).
> > >
> > > Perhaps an expert could confirm the position.
> > >
> > > Nat Alcock
> > > #-----------------------------------------------------------
> > > # Nat Alcock, University of Warwick
> > > # Coventry CV4 7AL
> > > # [log in to unmask] +(44)-(0)24-76523228; Fax -76524112
> > > #-----------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> #-----------------------------------------------------------
> # Nat Alcock, University of Warwick
> # Coventry CV4 7AL
> # [log in to unmask] +(44)-(0)24-76523228; Fax -76524112
> #-----------------------------------------------------------
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|