I'm sorry to have taken so long to reply the deluge of postings on this
subject.
First, as an employee of CLA - I would like to thank the list for
drawing our attention to the unreasonable nature of our old copyright
statement. We will consider making appropriate changes to the new one
consistent with our objectives for the website, which are that it should
be a source of information on copyright and copyright licensing in the
UK. We endorse Ian Roddis' comments on the need to work together with
eLib projects and please email me at CLA ([log in to unmask])
Secondly, (cya time) what follows is not in my capacity as an employee
of CLA..
These are my personal opinions on a number of points raised in the
thread.
(1) Technical limitations to "view source". In the COPICAT project
(http://www.mari.co.uk/copicat/) we managed to demonstrate a system
which did allow webmasters/copyright owners to restrict access to the
work/website/source to particular classes of user.
(2) Legal limitations to "view source". I submit that, where no specific
authorisation is given, it is probably a technical infringement to view
source, on the basis that the courts have always construed implied
licences very narrowly. I'll be formulating a specific query on this and
posting it to a specialist copyright list and to this list.
(3) Subsistence of copyright in HTML code. I agree absolutely with Peter
Duncanson's post on this subject. A piece of HTML code is a literary
work, which uses HTML tags in addition to the words of the English
language. Phil Bradley's point that the tags are different because they
are functional makes no difference. Copyright subsists in a computer
program, yet the statements and commands in a computer program listing
are functional. The notion of separating out the tags from the text
simply doesn't make sense in copyright analysis.
(4) Extent of copying. For copyright to be infringed, the whole or any
substantial part of the work must be copied. The courts construe
"substantial" broadly and in terms of quality rather than quantity. If
the part copied is worth copying in its own right, it is likely to be
substantial.
(5) Henry Rzepa's molecule example: challenge accepted personally (it's
not really one that CLA can address). The screen display of a program
which takes structural, chemical or crystallographic data to display
representations of a molecule is a computer-generated copyright work, as
is any subsequent printout. The copyright belongs first to the operator
of the machine. Copyright does not subsist in the underlying factual
data.The copyright is infringed by a person who copies the display but
not by someone who uses the same program and the same data to produce an
identical display; it is thus practically worthless but it does not
alter the fact that it subsists. Copyright may subsist in the underlying
data (for example a set of results derived from a crystallographic
experiment). This copyright would be infringed by copying the data, but
not by carrying out the same experiment with the same sample to produce
identical data. The position on compilations of data is complicated and
the law in the UK is at odds with the rest of the world until at least
1/1/98 by which time the EU's Database Directive is supposed to be
implemented. (this also addresses Stuart Peters' comments on the 'sweat
of the brow' doctrine)
(6) Henry's second point on Framesets: his colleague should have emailed
the creator of the frameset for permission. Just changing things a bit
doesn't alter the fact that it was copied, and it is copying which is
the restricted act.
(7) Dick Chamberlain's point on general ignorance of copyright issues. I
agree - it's not, however, confined to this list. The need for education
was emphasised both in the US White Paper and in the EC's Green Paper on
copyright and the information society. I have put together a personal
website at http://www.plato32.demon.co.uk/Edward/, entitled "Edward
Barrow's Unofficial Copyright Pages", trying to present UK copyright law
as it relates to the Internet.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|