Copyright question

[TonyRPH]

There has been a little 'spat' in a Facebook group I am a member of, which has raised this question.

Consider the following scenario:

Fred Bloggs creates a compilation CD containing vintage television schematic diagrams, nearly all (if not all) of which were produced by long gone manufacturers from the 1940's through to the 1970's.

These schematic diagrams will have in some cases been purchased from the manufacturer, and in other cases provided free of charge.

The oldest of the diagrams will have been in the public domain for 60+ years, the newest probably 40 years.

I don't know if any copyright status was declared by the manufacturers at the time. The diagram would however have contained their intellectual property, but they would have expected that these diagrams would have been offered to the repair trade at some point in time.

My questions:

Can the creator of the CD compilation (Fred Bloggs) make any claim to copyright?

Is anybody breaking any laws by distributing any content from the CD compilation referred to above?

My understanding is that if there was any copyright on the original diagrams, this would be retained by the originator, whether or not they were still in business?

Am I right in thinking that Fred Bloggs cannot make any copyright claim, despite creating the compilation CD of diagrams?

Thanks for reading!

[anonymous-user]

Off the top of my head:

The schematics, if I have understood what they are, are probably governed by unregistered design right rather than copyright. That has a much shorter period of protection (~ 15 years) and so that protection has expired.

Bloggs, who has collected a bunch of these on a CD, can though assert copyright in the compilation. That means that if someone copies the compilation, or a substantial part of it, he can complain.

Compilation copyright is a distinct type of protection. You can be in the odd position of both being able to assert and protect a compilation copyright whilst at the same time on the hook for infringing the copyrights in the individual works you’ve complied - though here the shortened unreg design right probably means the second aspect isn’t present.

[PhilboSE]

TonyRPH said:

The oldest of the diagrams will have been in the public domain for 60+ years, the newest probably 40 years.

Being "in the public domain" actually means copyright expired, so I suspect you mean "publicly available".

TonyRPH said:

I don't know if any copyright status was declared by the manufacturers at the time. The diagram would however have contained their intellectual property, but they would have expected that these diagrams would have been offered to the repair trade at some point in time.

Publishing information doesn't mean you relinquish copyright. Copyright actually controls the right to make copies of something or make derivative works. It also means the owner retains these rights until 70 years after their death.

TonyRPH said:

My questions:

Can the creator of the CD compilation (Fred Bloggs) make any claim to copyright?

The only originality is in the assembly and/or ordering/presentation of the files. The original source material was probably still copyrighted so he's actually likely to be in breach himself.

If anyone wanted to avoid any claims the compiler might make then all they need to do is create their own compilation of the works.

TonyRPH said:

Is anybody breaking any laws by distributing any content from the CD compilation referred to above?

Quite possibly, though the likelihood of anyone pursuing it seems to be low.

TonyRPH said:

My understanding is that if there was any copyright on the original diagrams, this would be retained by the originator, whether or not they were still in business?

Correct.

TonyRPH said:

Am I right in thinking that Fred Bloggs cannot make any copyright claim, despite creating the compilation CD of diagrams?
Thanks for reading!

See above, the most he could claim could be the compilation order or anything he created as an original work like a loading screen. Anyone else would be unrestricted to create their own compilation from the original sources (though might breach copyright in the same way as the original compiler).

In short, the compiler is on just as much of a sticky wicket on copyright grounds as anyone who copies his compilation. If anyone else creates their own compilation (different file structure on disc, names, order/presentation) etc then the original compilation has no complaint even if they went to considerable time and effort to find the original files and make the compilation.

IANAL but I did study copyright law though it was some decades ago.

[Grrbang]

Interesting scenario and fairly obscure law.

BlackWidow13 said:

The schematics, if I have understood what they are, are probably governed by unregistered design right rather than copyright. That has a much shorter period of protection (~ 15 years) and so that protection has expired.

I think I've found the section you refer to: CDPA 1988 Section 226(1)(b) and (3): "making articles to that design, or making a design document recording the design for the purpose of enabling such articles to be made."

However, these schematics predate CDPA 1988, and therefore predate the existence of unregistered design rights as defined in the Act. Even if the Act did apply, it's not clear that electrical circuit schematics would be categorised as a design - they may instead be categorised as a copyrighted literary work (death + 70 years) or a semiconductor topography (10-15 years).

Therefore, the issue may need to be looked at through the lens of pre-CDPA copyright law, which is so old that everyone used to it will be of retirement age by now! I have a CDPA book at work which includes sections on old law, so when I next get a moment I will have a look.


An interesting side note on unregistered design right is that the duration of exclusive protection is commonly 5 years rather than the often-quoted 15 years. Firstly, it's much more common for the term to be limited to 10 years rather than 15 years. In addition, the owner has to agree to a license in the last 5 years. Therefore, in many cases, the exclusivity period is only 5 years. By contrast, a registered design (i.e., one that you apply for) has a term of up to 25 years from registration.

[NMNeil]

Interesting one.
I have a compilation music CD of classical guitar by Julian Bream and John Williams by artists who have been dead for decades if not centuries, but the CD still has the "Unlawful to copy" on it.
I know it's not documents but it may have the same sort of 'performance' copyright, smarter minds may know.
But if you want old TV schematics that are in the public domain why not just get them yourself?

[Grrbang]

NMNeil said:

Interesting one.
I have a compilation music CD of classical guitar by Julian Bream and John Williams by artists who have been dead for decades if not centuries, but the CD still has the "Unlawful to copy" on it.
I know it's not documents but it may have the same sort of 'performance' copyright, smarter minds may know.
But if you want old TV schematics that are in the public domain why not just get them yourself?

Rightly or wrongly, the recorded performances may be considered original works despite being ‘covers’ of publicly owned compositions.

Edited by Grrbang on Thursday 5th May 00:16

[PhilboSE]

NMNeil said:

Interesting one.
I have a compilation music CD of classical guitar by Julian Bream and John Williams by artists who have been dead for decades if not centuries, but the CD still has the "Unlawful to copy" on it.
I know it's not documents but it may have the same sort of 'performance' copyright, smarter minds may know.
But if you want old TV schematics that are in the public domain why not just get them yourself?

The performance creates a new “original” and copyrightable work. Anyone else can make their own performance of something that is in the public domain, and assert copyright, but you can’t make copies of someone else’s performances.

[anonymous-user]

Grrbang said:

I think I've found the section you refer to: CDPA 1988 Section 226(1)(b) and (3): "making articles to that design, or making a design document recording the design for the purpose of enabling such articles to be made."

However, these schematics predate CDPA 1988, and therefore predate the existence of unregistered design rights as defined in the Act. Even if the Act did apply, it's not clear that electrical circuit schematics would be categorised as a design - they may instead be categorised as a copyrighted literary work (death + 70 years) or a semiconductor topography (10-15 years).

Therefore, the issue may need to be looked at through the lens of pre-CDPA copyright law, which is so old that everyone used to it will be of retirement age by now! I have a CDPA book at work which includes sections on old law, so when I next get a moment I will have a look.


An interesting side note on unregistered design right is that the duration of exclusive protection is commonly 5 years rather than the often-quoted 15 years. Firstly, it's much more common for the term to be limited to 10 years rather than 15 years. In addition, the owner has to agree to a license in the last 5 years. Therefore, in many cases, the exclusivity period is only 5 years. By contrast, a registered design (i.e., one that you apply for) has a term of up to 25 years from registration.

I wasn’t referring to s 226. S213 defines what is protected by unregistered design right.

When unregistered design right came in, any copyright in a work protected by it would not be informed; s50 of the CDPA. The effect therefore, was to impose design right in industrial design and immediately remove them from the realm of copyright protection. The fact that the work predated the CDPA is irrelevant.

I very much doubt that these schematics will qualify as semiconductor topologies given their age and my guess as to what they look like. Your point about the real life duration of UDR protection is well-made.

Having just had a look at the leading textbook, it looks fairly clear that unless you have the money to run the point to the CA, schematics are design documents protected by unregistered design right and not copyright.

[SiH]

PhilboSE said:

NMNeil said:

Interesting one.
I have a compilation music CD of classical guitar by Julian Bream and John Williams by artists who have been dead for decades if not centuries, but the CD still has the "Unlawful to copy" on it.
I know it's not documents but it may have the same sort of 'performance' copyright, smarter minds may know.
But if you want old TV schematics that are in the public domain why not just get them yourself?

The performance creates a new “original” and copyrightable work. Anyone else can make their own performance of something that is in the public domain, and assert copyright, but you can’t make copies of someone else’s performances.

It might also be a different arrangement of the original pieces. Sometimes composers will make adjustments to the original work which may be substantial enough to render it, in the eyes of the law, a new piece and therefore protectable. IANAL but I've seen this sort of thing before on music that has been subtly changed from the original piece.

[Gareth79]

Another aspect is that the scans themselves are a copyright, especially if they have been edited or cleaned up in any way. eg. if you scan an old out-of-copyright map then the scanned image is your copyright. Likewise a photo taken of an old painting etc.

[PhilboSE]

SiH said:

PhilboSE said:

NMNeil said:

Interesting one.
I have a compilation music CD of classical guitar by Julian Bream and John Williams by artists who have been dead for decades if not centuries, but the CD still has the "Unlawful to copy" on it.
I know it's not documents but it may have the same sort of 'performance' copyright, smarter minds may know.
But if you want old TV schematics that are in the public domain why not just get them yourself?

The performance creates a new “original” and copyrightable work. Anyone else can make their own performance of something that is in the public domain, and assert copyright, but you can’t make copies of someone else’s performances.

It might also be a different arrangement of the original pieces. Sometimes composers will make adjustments to the original work which may be substantial enough to render it, in the eyes of the law, a new piece and therefore protectable. IANAL but I've seen this sort of thing before on music that has been subtly changed from the original piece.

Copyright extends to "derivative works". You would need to change a piece that is under copyright more than "subtly" to be able to assert different and new (see recent Ed Sheeran court cases), but it would be quite simple to assert new copyright on a new arrangement of a piece that is in the public domain. However nothing would stop someone else from creating their own arrangement of the original piece, but if it was too close to the other arrangement then lawyers get to have a field day arguing about originality vs derivative. Again, see Ed Sheeran cases! It's getting crazy now that some music artists seem to be trying to assert copyright over a couple of chords played in a sequence in a common key; the way things are going it will be impossible to create new music at all without being sued.

[NMNeil]

Gareth79 said:

Another aspect is that the scans themselves are a copyright, especially if they have been edited or cleaned up in any way. eg. if you scan an old out-of-copyright map then the scanned image is your copyright. Likewise a photo taken of an old painting etc.

That sounds odd, as many early books have been scanned and are available with no mention of copyright.
https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/
https://www.loc.gov/collections/selected-digitized...

[tjl]

NMNeil said:

Gareth79 said:

Another aspect is that the scans themselves are a copyright, especially if they have been edited or cleaned up in any way. eg. if you scan an old out-of-copyright map then the scanned image is your copyright. Likewise a photo taken of an old painting etc.

That sounds odd, as many early books have been scanned and are available with no mention of copyright.
https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/
https://www.loc.gov/collections/selected-digitized...

Because they fall outside the 70 year time limit presumably and are now publicly available?

[NMNeil]

tjl said:

NMNeil said:

Gareth79 said:

Another aspect is that the scans themselves are a copyright, especially if they have been edited or cleaned up in any way. eg. if you scan an old out-of-copyright map then the scanned image is your copyright. Likewise a photo taken of an old painting etc.

That sounds odd, as many early books have been scanned and are available with no mention of copyright.
https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/
https://www.loc.gov/collections/selected-digitized...

Because they fall outside the 70 year time limit presumably and are now publicly available?

That's why i questioned the statement by Gareth79 that if you scan an out of copyright book you now hold the copyright of the scan.

[SiH]

PhilboSE said:

SiH said:

PhilboSE said:

NMNeil said:

Interesting one.
I have a compilation music CD of classical guitar by Julian Bream and John Williams by artists who have been dead for decades if not centuries, but the CD still has the "Unlawful to copy" on it.
I know it's not documents but it may have the same sort of 'performance' copyright, smarter minds may know.
But if you want old TV schematics that are in the public domain why not just get them yourself?

The performance creates a new “original” and copyrightable work. Anyone else can make their own performance of something that is in the public domain, and assert copyright, but you can’t make copies of someone else’s performances.

It might also be a different arrangement of the original pieces. Sometimes composers will make adjustments to the original work which may be substantial enough to render it, in the eyes of the law, a new piece and therefore protectable. IANAL but I've seen this sort of thing before on music that has been subtly changed from the original piece.

Copyright extends to "derivative works". You would need to change a piece that is under copyright more than "subtly" to be able to assert different and new (see recent Ed Sheeran court cases), but it would be quite simple to assert new copyright on a new arrangement of a piece that is in the public domain. However nothing would stop someone else from creating their own arrangement of the original piece, but if it was too close to the other arrangement then lawyers get to have a field day arguing about originality vs derivative. Again, see Ed Sheeran cases! It's getting crazy now that some music artists seem to be trying to assert copyright over a couple of chords played in a sequence in a common key; the way things are going it will be impossible to create new music at all without being sued.

Totally agree with you on the extension of copyright on pieces that were/are still protected (such as the Ed Sheeran example) but I was more thinking about the instance where the original copyright had long since past, such as for many classical music pieces. Would an alternative arrangement be enough to be copyrightable on its own?

[Aretnap]

NMNeil said:

tjl said:

NMNeil said:

Gareth79 said:

Another aspect is that the scans themselves are a copyright, especially if they have been edited or cleaned up in any way. eg. if you scan an old out-of-copyright map then the scanned image is your copyright. Likewise a photo taken of an old painting etc.

That sounds odd, as many early books have been scanned and are available with no mention of copyright.
https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/
https://www.loc.gov/collections/selected-digitized...

Because they fall outside the 70 year time limit presumably and are now publicly available?

That's why i questioned the statement by Gareth79 that if you scan an out of copyright book you now hold the copyright of the scan.

In the USA there's case law to say that an exact reproduction of a work of art cannot create new copyright even if it requires considerable skill and effort to create - there has to be some element of originality for you to hold copyright on the "not quite copy".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Libr...

In the UK the situation appears to be a bit murkier.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

I remember this leading to a kerfuffle on Wikipedia some years ago after someone uploaded a lot of scans of old portraits from the National Portrait Gallery website. The NPG threatened to sue, but they never did, so we never found out whether they really owned the copyright.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_...

[Hungry Pigeon]

The legal test for copyright, in the context of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, is whether the work in question is original. If the work has been copied, it is not original and hence copyright does not subsist in that work. If it has not been copied then it is, by definition, original and a work in which copyright subsists.

There is no requirement for a work to be "different" or "new". If two people independently create exactly the same work without copying anyone else's work, then copyright will subsist in both works even though they are identical.

[matjk]

Ministry of Sound sued Spotify because they wouldn’t delete user made playlists that contained the same songs in the same order as their Albums, they claimed it took special skill to select the songs and the order the track went in even though all the tracks were individually licensed to Spotify. Spotify settled out of court so it must have had some legs

[Hungry Pigeon]

matjk said:

Ministry of Sound sued Spotify because they wouldn’t delete user made playlists that contained the same songs in the same order as their Albums, they claimed it took special skill to select the songs and the order the track went in even though all the tracks were individually licensed to Spotify. Spotify settled out of court so it must have had some legs

....or the Ministry decided that suing one of the world's largest outlets for their music wasn't the best of ideas

....or Spotify said drop the suit or we'll drop your music

....or Spotify said "it's not us, it's our users", a phrase oft used by Kim Dotcom

There are many reasons for folks deciding not to continue with a lawsuit. I don't think you can infer that settling means that Spotify were bang to rights.

[NMNeil]

SiH said:

Totally agree with you on the extension of copyright on pieces that were/are still protected (such as the Ed Sheeran example) but I was more thinking about the instance where the original copyright had long since past, such as for many classical music pieces. Would an alternative arrangement be enough to be copyrightable on its own?

You could argue that as the alternative arrangement it wasn't an original work so it cannot be copyrighted.
I believe that Monty Python once did a sketch where they copyrighted the letter 'S', but I can't find it on Youtube.
May be a copyright issue