Sunday 21 October 2012

Media Law Lecture 3: Copyright 2.0 and this time it is time to not use enough fair dealing to make it personal

Week 3 of advanced media law and we privileged to be have a guest lecture from Peter Hodges. Peter has been in a variety of different industries over the last 35 years from music to television, but he is a expert in what today's lecture subject was about: copyright. Peter used to be the head of copyright at the BBC, therefore he has had to deal with almost everything you can think of when it comes from copyright to using the latest number 1 hit in Eastenders to the lighting arrangements in a BBC 2 play on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

Before we start lets have a small history lesson into copyright, which started with John Wilton and his verses of poem titled Paradise Lost first published in 1667 and was the first example of copyright. Copyright has then gone onto cover every aspect of the media and the arts including:

* Performing rights
* Dramatic performances including sound, lighting, stage and set designs etc.
* Television.
* Typography E.G. fonts
* Databases
* And even the Internet.


This brought into place the Copyright, Designs and Patents act 1988, which means everyone that has something published needs to ensure that their rights are protected and none of their work is copied or used without their permission. Therefore, if we wish to use someone else works for review, production or just as a name for their blog we need the person's permission (prior to contrary belief Has Lou got News for You does not sound anything like a topic BBC panel show). Once the work is published by any means or in any format (written, spoke, broadcasted) it can then be protected.


As a journalist working on WINOL I come across copyright almost every day. In particular in a recent story I covered on Barton Farm I used pictures of the development, but I needed permission from the developed, Cala Homes to use them and I also had to accredit them with their permission to use the pictures during the news package. The package in question if you want to view is shown below (plugging to get more views is necessary in any topic even copyright).



Peter Hodges then gave us a example of copyright, which you would not think of. The Eiffel Tower in Paris, France is one of the most iconic monuments in the world, but when it is illuminated at night would you think it is copyright? You would probably think no, but yes in fact it is copyright because it has been designed for use, therefore you would need to get the permission of the owners of the rights to take a photo or use it for any purpose.

 Another topic came up was the chanting of songs at Football matches. Every team has their own series or songs that are usually about players, but are sung to the tune of a certain famous song. For example I am a season ticket holder at Southampton and one of the songs we use is When The Saints Go Marching In, which was originally a Belgian christian hymn. Now you cannot stop a team singing the song, but television and radio stations are usually skeptical of letting the viewer or listener hear the song, so unless the crowd is very loud (the away Southampton following) then they will not let the song be heard because of copyright laws. But, generally sometimes this is out of their control and clubs that use the song (nearly 40 across all sports worldwide) have not come to face any criminal law suit against them for using this song, so the likeliness of copyright issues in this case are rare, but you still need to be aware.

Copyright can last for literacy work in particular for the life of the author and another 70 years after they have died, therefore J.K Rowling and the works of Harry Potter will be labeled with copyright during my generation and beyond. This is the same for a movie, which will include the director/, the composers music and the even the cinematographer. For music it is a little different with songs have copyright for 50 years.

As a owner of a work you have the right to prevent copies and performances of this work taking place. It costs money to have works used E.G. music played or used. For example in the UK in 2009 the PRS (Performing Rights Society) started a legal battle against YouTube for the illegal use of music videos on it's site without any royalties being paid to the artists. This resulted in the pulling of music videos being unavailable to view in the UK during the summer of 2009. The dispute was settled towards the end of the year, which meant Google (the parent owners of YouTube) have paid a subscription fees for the use of these vidoes. The major dispute now is the battle between the PRS and illegal file sharing sites, which is allowing the broadcast and use of music artist's singles and albums for free as they are being downloaded illegally and are not being paid for.

If a copyright owner's rights are infringed then they have the right to put forward a injunction to stop the work being used and can even file for damages caused by the use of their work. In McNae's Essential Law for Journalist 21st edition it explains a key example of this. In 1997 the Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown stepped down and decided to publish his private diary, but before this was published The Sunday Telegraph published some of these diary entries. Mr Ashdown sued the paper for breach of copyright, but The Sunday Telegraph claimed it was being used as "fair dealing", but this judgement was quashed as the judge felt it was not being used for reviews purpose and that they had sensationalised the entries and was also a breach of confidence.

This brings me onto the subject of fair dealing. Fair dealing is the fair practice of using a small amount of a person work for various purposes that can include:

* For research of private study for dramatic or art works.
* For criticism and review for all works.
* Reporting currents events.
* Parliamentary procedures
* Royal commission.

However, photos can not be used without obtained consent from the owner.  This is particular in news as if one reporter's photos from ITV were used by every major news outlet in the world, then this photographer would not make a living by selling these pictures.

A owner has the moral rights of copyright and have the right to be credited for any use of their work, the right to not have their work subject to derogatory treatment and the right to have privacy of their work being used at all.

We learn from Peter that £500,000 is a relatively small amount to be paid out in any breach of copyright case. Winol has covered a key example of copyright issues, which involved The Hobbit Pub in Southampton being sued by the Saul Zaentz production company earlier this year. The case involved the use of the films name without accreditation to the production company and a payment of royalties for the use of the film name and it's characters and trademarks. The dispute is interesting as the pub was running under this name for 20 years before any lawsuit came to light and this only occurred because The Hobbit is being made into a third-part feature length film and has now renewed publicity. The pub are still trying to negotiation for restricted rights. This was the story WINOL covered when the dispute came to light earlier this year:




What you have to remember is every time you hear a piece of music on the radio, the radio station are also paying part of the copyright out of their advertising payments to the published and even the BBC will used up to 55,000 clips of music a week ranging from a 1 second jingle on BBC Radio Solent to 3 hours of a opera on BBC Radio 3.

Copyright will always changes because people always push for changes, but as a journalist I will be more careful next time I edit a package to ensure that there is no music in the background during a interview grab or that a label is not visible when filming my GV's.

Until next time I remind you to watch out for those signs of copyright and do not be a plagiariser or you will be caught!

No comments:

Post a Comment