Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Huddersfield 15/16 JPP Law 4
Transcript of Huddersfield 15/16 JPP Law 4
Office hours: Tuesday: 1:15-2:15pm
What is copyright?
Defences for journalists
Copyright on social media
Defences for journalists
Copyright on social media
Copyright is the right to control who can copy work created by artistic and other intellectual endeavour.
This includes journalism articles, online content, books, photos, films, TV and radio broadcasts and sound recordings including music.
Copying any of these things without permission is an offence under the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
But almost as importantly, it's pretty embarrassing when you get caught.
You might have got away with this in the pre-internet days, if nobody noticed. But no longer.
So, what does the law say?
Unauthorised copying of the whole or
any substantial part
of any copyrighted work is not allowed.
(Although there are some defences: we'll come to those in a bit)
literary, dramatic, music or artistic works, as well as sound recordings, films or broadcasts. Also, the typographical arrangement of printed publications.
What is original?
Copyright law protects
work. This means it was created using some element of "skill, labour and judgment".
No copyright in facts or information
Copyright doesn't apply to the facts of a news story, only the way it's written and presented.
You're free to follow up a story first reported somewhere else, as long as you rewrite it in your own words. It's also good practice online to include a hyperlink to the initial piece.
Who owns the copyright?
The copyright is owned by the author. However, if you create something in the course of your job, your employer owns the copyright.
That's a pretty broad definition. But it doesn't cover everything. For example, if you wrote a book and wanted to call it Love Is Blind that would be fine, because it's a well-known phrase and therefore not
If you're working as a freelance, it's worth clarifying where you stand. For example, if you're doing work experience and want to publish articles you've written there on your own blog.
When does copyright run out?
In the EU, it's 70 years after the death of the author.
When does copyright start?
As soon as a work is published. You don't have to register it or anything like that.
Remember it this way:
Anything worth copying is usually worth protecting.
A lot of the most popular sites on the internet do a lot of 'lifting' - publishing their own versions of material first produced by rivals in search of hits.
Breaching copyright is a criminal and civil offence. But there are some defences that will help keep us out of court.
Fair dealing: reporting current events
Fair dealing: criticism or review
Important: fair dealing does
cover still pictures, to protect the livelihood of professional photographers.
The 1988 Act allows the publication of copyrighted work for the purpose of reporting current events.
Fair dealing usually only applies within your own country. As a result, programmes including fair dealing clips of sports rights are usually not available online.
1. The publisher must do it fairly, so can't take unfair advantage by publishing too much.
2. The publisher must credit the source of the material.
So, if Sky Sports News wants to show a clip of a match it doesn't have the rights to (eg. FA Cup), it can do so as long as it only shows brief highlights with a credit ("Pictures from BBC").
Different broadcasters will usually have guidelines for this. For sports matches, it's often one minute of game footage, used six times.
It's not just sport. Broadcasters usually allow rivals to use clips of interviews from their Sunday morning political programmes.
But remember, it has to be
. Just taking material from a rival because you couldn't be bothered or couldn't afford to get your own stuff would not be fair.
You can publish copies of a work "for the purpose of criticism or review" - even without the copyright owner's consent. But the work must already have been made available to the public.
A media company could make a public interest defence, if it published copyrighted work in order to expose something immoral.
In 2010, the Reading Post won a case after it published photos taken from a website run by 'urban explorers'. The photographer sued for breach of copyright, but lost.
The Act says there's no infringement if the copyrighted material is included on an incidental basis. For example, a picture on the wall in the background of a TV news report.
It would be very difficult to do review programmes without this exemption. And besides, makers of films and so on are usually glad of the publicity.
However, restrictions are much tighter for certain events, such as pay-per-view boxing bouts.
This precedent was set by a case brought against BSB by the BBC after the 1990 World Cup.
The High Court held that BSB's use of brief clips with a BBC credit was acceptable under fair dealing, and threw out the BBC's case.
Some of the best pictures and video of news events are now taken by members of the public, and uploaded and shared on social media.
This is still an evolving area of copyright law. But, in general, when it is ok to use this stuff?
If you upload a picture to Twitter, you keep the copyright. Media companies can't just take it without getting permission.
Photographer Daniel Morel was awarded $1.2m after he sued AFP and Getty for using pictures he took of the 2010 Haiti earthquake without asking first.
The judge ruled that retweeting is fine, but re-use by commercial companies without permission certainly isn't.
The BBC also got into trouble over this in 2011, when it was criticised for using images of the English riots taken from Twitter.
The BBC clarified its policy. It says it always asks for permission. But, in "exceptional" cases, if it's a breaking news event and it's not possible to contact the photographer for some reason, it may go ahead and use a picture without permission.
So, if you ever see a picture on Twitter that you want to use in a story of yours, always tweet the photographer and ask them (offer a credit). I've never known anyone say no to this!
On the other hand, if you find one of your pictures being published elsewhere and you haven't given permission, email the publisher and ask them to take it down or give you some money.
Facebook's a little bit different.
While Twitter is generally public, Facebook generally isn't. So, questions of privacy come into play here, too.
In general though, you have to get permission, just like for Twitter. But you'll notice certain publishers might not bother. They are assuming that members of the public won't know their rights and won't sue.
It's a similar story on Instagram, which had to do a u-turn when it briefly changed its terms of service.
The Sunday Express was roundly criticised in 2009 when it published pictures taken from social media profiles of Dunblane survivors. The Press Complaints Commission ruled against the paper.
Both BBC and Editor's Code guidelines say the privacy settings of a person's Facebook page can be taken into account when deciding whether or not to use an image.
Sometimes, using a picture might be justified in the public interest, as with this alleged 'Nazi salute' by a UKIP council candidate.
But in general, unless it's a profile picture and you're using it just to illustrate what someone looks like, you're on pretty shaky ground (unless you get permission, of course).
There are sources of copyright-free images online. The two best ones are Wikipedia and Flickr's Creative Commons. You can usually use these pictures for free, with a credit.
Times tennis correspondent Neil Harman lost his job when it was discovered he had lifted the work of others when writing the official Wimbledon annual.
Harman did this more than 50 times. When caught, he admitted he'd let his standards slip and blamed pressure of work.
European Copyright Directive
, which came into force last year, means that parody videos such as those done by Cassetteboy are now ok, although if a case came to court a judge would have to agree that a video was funny.
Even the Conservative Party got into trouble with this recently, after lifting footage of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn speaking at an event, to use in a party broadcast.