TR - Ennerdale 3-day backpack



On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:37:28 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jim Hutton wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, someone suggested using aerial photos as a basis for maps. Copyright applies just
>> as much here, so a map based on someone else's aerial photos is still infringing copyright.
>>
>> This may all be old history shortly - I have heard a rumour that NSA are planning to release
>> detailed satellite photos (5m resolution !) for the whole of Europe. AFAIK there will be no
>> copyright reserved.
>
>Yeah, but how are you going to work out the contour lines? Hilly land tends to look very flat from
>an aerial view.
>
>Paul

True. Unless they kindly release stereo pairs ....

For my purposes the photos will do fine. Still not as good as a modern OS map would be (a footpath
or even a road can be surprisingly hard to spot if the area is wooded or broken ground), but better
than nothing.

I am aiming at 'maps' which will be uploadable to the current range of Garmin gps, so the limits of
the screen size etc rule out contours. I want the pics to give me such things as streams, etc which
are hard (and wet) to map with a gps.

I intend the gps maps to be used in conjunction with (eg) OS paper maps or computer software to
provide contours, route profiles etc. The gps map simply has the objective of showing you where you
are on the map at a glance without the need to rule off a numeric map reference. The ones I already
have done work fine IMHO. The assumption is (a) you have a paper map and (b) you know roughly where
you are already (ie on Scafell not Bowfell. May not always be true for some people...).

Jim Hutton
 
Jim Hutton wrote:

> For my purposes the photos will do fine. Still not as good as a modern OS map would be (a footpath
> or even a road can be surprisingly hard to spot if the area is wooded or broken ground), but
> better than nothing.

Judging by some of the aerial photos I've seen, well-used footpaths can often be seen easily, and
this can be very useful if the footpath isn't shown on the map (I know of many that aren't) or if
the footpath doesn't follow the exact route shown on the map (often the case with ROWs).

> I am aiming at 'maps' which will be uploadable to the current range of Garmin gps, so the limits
> of the screen size etc rule out contours.

A worthy goal. Not what I want though. I'd like to be able to put maps on my website to show the
general layout of an area. Not footpaths, but just the shape of the land, peaks and ridges mainly,
plus major rivers. Not to be used for actual navigation but just as a guide to help visualise the 3D
shape of an area (which often isn't easy from a detailed map covered with complex contour lines). I
still haven't thought of a practical way of doing this without infringing copyright though.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
> A worthy goal. Not what I want though. I'd like to be able to put maps on my website to show the
> general layout of an area. Not footpaths, but just the shape of the land, peaks and ridges
> mainly, plus major rivers. Not to be used for actual navigation but just as a guide to help
> visualise the 3D shape of an area (which often isn't easy from a detailed map covered with
> complex contour lines). I still haven't thought of a practical way of doing this without
> infringing copyright though.

There will be a way; you may or may not know that I am the author of some fellrunning software
called Trailgauge. Anyway after many months of effort I will be shortly releasing the next version
that will have the ability to generate a map c/w with contour lines, height colouring, light
shading, grid lines and any GPS waypoints or tracks overlaid. This is generated in any map
projection you want from the freely available SRTM height data. Perfect for publishing race routes,
walking routes etc without any copyright worries.

You will still have to be wary of tracing tracks or waypoints off a copyright map though. But you
could use a GPS tracklog instead.

You can even use the data to enhance existing maps e.g. add contour lines to an aerial photo, light
shade an existing topo map etc. There's also some fancy 3d stuff in there (similar to anquet) and a
relational database for sorting, filtering and querying all your GPS data.

I'll keep you posted.

Andrew
 
Andrew W wrote:

> There will be a way; you may or may not know that I am the author of some fellrunning software
> called Trailgauge. Anyway after many months of effort I will be shortly releasing the next version
> that will have the ability to generate a map c/w with contour lines, height colouring, light
> shading, grid lines and any GPS waypoints or tracks overlaid. This is generated in any map
> projection you want from the freely available SRTM height data. Perfect for publishing race
> routes, walking routes etc without any copyright worries.

Sounds very interesting.

> I'll keep you posted.

Thanks.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
This is an example of the sort of map that you can generate :-

http://www.trailgauge.co.uk/tg3screen.jpg

This one hasn't got any waypoints or tracks (other than the selected track) on it but shows how the
SRTM elevation data can generate a perfect backdrop for copyright free maps.

Andrew

"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew W wrote:
>
> > There will be a way; you may or may not know that I am the author of some fellrunning software
> > called Trailgauge. Anyway after many months of effort I will be shortly releasing the next
> > version that will have the ability to generate a map c/w with contour lines, height colouring,
> > light shading, grid lines and any GPS waypoints or tracks overlaid. This is generated in any map
> > projection you want from the freely available SRTM height data. Perfect for publishing race
> > routes, walking routes etc without any copyright worries.
>
> Sounds very interesting.
>
> > I'll keep you posted.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Paul
> --
> http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
> http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:45:10 +0000, Michael Farthing
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Jim Hutton
><[email protected]> writes
>>Incidentally, someone suggested using aerial photos as a basis for maps. Copyright applies just as
>>much here, so a map based on someone else's aerial photos is still infringing copyright.
>
>Are you sure about this? I'd be very surprised if any copyright is breached. You are not using the
>creative input of the photographer.

Yes you are - copyright is not creativity - it is the fact that someone has gone and created
something of *value* in this case. Aircraft are not cheap to fly!

>You are simply using published material as the source of your own creativity.

It's a derived work and therefore in breach. If someone were to paint a watercolour from a photo I
ahd taken, taht's a breach of copyright.

>I doubt that you are breaching copyright any more than the photographer is breaching copyright in
>reproducing my carefully crafted roof when he takes the photograph... Now this is my guesswork -
>anyone have anything better to go on?

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
 
In message <[email protected]>, Chris Street
<[email protected]> writes
>On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:45:10 +0000, Michael Farthing <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I doubt that you are breaching copyright any more than the photographer is breaching copyright in
>>reproducing my carefully crafted roof when he takes the photograph... Now this is my guesswork -
>>anyone have anything better to go on?
>
>Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

Well, I'll take your word for it provisionally, because I don't know. But I wouldn't put any
great reliance on this response unless you could direct me to specific sections, preferably with
a bit of case law! [I trust you have read it? I once asked on a newsgroup for reference to
evidence about some global-warming-like assertion and got the reply "The Academic Literature". I
considered replying along the lines of, "yes, read that last night. Must have missed it. Which
bit did you mean?".]

BTW Why isn't my copyright of my carefully crafted roof not breached? (Or perhaps it is!).

>

--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House
 
Michael Farthing wrote on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:45:10 +0000....
> In message <[email protected]>, Jim Hutton
> <[email protected]> writes
> >Incidentally, someone suggested using aerial photos as a basis for maps. Copyright applies just
> >as much here, so a map based on someone else's aerial photos is still infringing copyright.
>
> Are you sure about this? I'd be very surprised if any copyright is breached. You are not using the
> creative input of the photographer.

Section 4(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 defines photographs as being artistic
works, *irrespective of artistic quality*. So whether you are using the creative input of the
photographer is not relevant.

> You are simply using published material as the source of your own creativity.

Copyright in a work is infringed if you reproduce it in any material form (CDPA section 17(2)). So
making a drawing from a photograph would infringe. This is also true if you don't reproduce the
whole of the photo, but only a substantial part of it (section 16(3)).

You would of course have a further copyright of your own for the original work you added on top of
what came from the photo.

> I doubt that you are breaching copyright any more than the photographer is breaching copyright in
> reproducing my carefully crafted roof when he takes the photograph... Now this is my guesswork -
> anyone have anything better to go on?

CDPA section 31(1):-

"31.—(1) Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound
recording, film, broadcast or cable programme."

So assuming your carefully crafted roof is a copyright work, there's no infringement if it is
*incidentally* included in another artistic work, such as an aerial photograph of a rather larger
area [1]. Ditto if, say, the local TV company is recording a program in the area and your roof
happens to appear in the background. But it would likely be an infringement if someone deliberately
takes a close-up photo in which your roof is the main subject.

In the case of a map made from an aerial photograph, that would be more than just incidental. Your
whole map would be based on the photo.

--
Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
Paul Saunders wrote on Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:18:37 -0000....
> What about summit lists then? Aren't they derived from OS maps?

The underlying information may be derived from OS maps, yes. But copyright protects the form of a
work or the way it is expressed, not the underlying ideas or information.

If you trace an OS map with a pencil and tracing paper, or even just from memory, then some of the
form or "expression" is still copied from the OS original. (Though you may have added further
aspects of form and expression, especially if you've done it in some stylised way, with the result
that you get a new copyright of your own as well.)

But if you make a list of names and heights of mountains, you've not copied any of the form or
expression of the original map. You've just derived information from it.

The term "derived work" actually comes from US copyright law, by the way, and I don't think it is
used in UK law. The basic principle is similar, however. In the US, the question is whether any of
the form or expression of the allegedly "derived" work is derived from the original. Not merely
whether any information or ideas were derived from it.

--
Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:14:28 +0000, Michael Farthing
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Chris Street
><[email protected]> writes
>>On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:45:10 +0000, Michael Farthing <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I doubt that you are breaching copyright any more than the photographer is breaching copyright in
>>>reproducing my carefully crafted roof when he takes the photograph... Now this is my guesswork -
>>>anyone have anything better to go on?
>>
>>Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988
>
>Well, I'll take your word for it provisionally, because I don't know. But I wouldn't put any great
>reliance on this response unless you could direct me to specific sections, preferably with a bit of
>case law!

You will want the bit about making copies of said work, specifically derivatives. It's not the best
drafted bit of law and it's quite long so I cannot remember offhand where it is.

>[I trust you have read it? I once asked on a newsgroup for reference to evidence about some global-warming-
>like assertion and got the reply "The Academic Literature". I considered replying along the lines
>of, "yes, read that last night. Must have missed it. Which bit did you mean?".]
>
>BTW Why isn't my copyright of my carefully crafted roof not breached?

Because you have placed it in the public domain.

The Eiffel Tower by day may be photographed. It's illegal by night as it is lit with lightbulbs and
under French law such arrangements are art and hence taking the photo is considered a derivative
work and hence is protected.

>(Or perhaps it is!).
>
>>

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
 
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:08:29 GMT, [email protected] (Chris
Street) wrote:

>The Eiffel Tower by day may be photographed. It's illegal by night as it is lit with lightbulbs and
>under French law such arrangements are art and hence taking the photo is considered a derivative
>work and hence is protected.

noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! LOL!!

Tell me this isn't so, tell me this isn't, afaict, another example of wacky French bureaucracy?

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum; http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk
 
Chris Street wrote:

> The Eiffel Tower by day may be photographed. It's illegal by night as it is lit with lightbulbs
> and under French law such arrangements are art and hence taking the photo is considered a
> derivative work and hence is protected.

Merde!

OK monsieur Gendarme, it's a fair cop...
--
Dave
 
In message <[email protected]>, Chris Street
<[email protected]> writes
>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:14:28 +0000, Michael Farthing <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In message <[email protected]>, Chris Street
>><[email protected]> writes
>>>On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:45:10 +0000, Michael Farthing <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>I doubt that you are breaching copyright any more than the photographer is breaching copyright
>>>>in reproducing my carefully crafted roof when he takes the photograph... Now this is my
>>>>guesswork - anyone have anything better to go on?
>>>
>>>Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988
>>
>>Well, I'll take your word for it provisionally, because I don't know. But I wouldn't put any great
>>reliance on this response unless you could direct me to specific sections, preferably with a bit
>>of case law!
>
>You will want the bit about making copies of said work, specifically derivatives. It's not the best
>drafted bit of law and it's quite long so I cannot remember offhand where it is.

Thanks for the reply, and to Tim for his comments.

Bringing the two together, I'm still at a loss why I am breaching copyright by making a map using a
copyright photograph. It has been admitted that I can take and reuse facts from a copyright source,
and I cannot see that making a map is doing anything different. The only thing that has remained of
the photograph in the map is the physical facts. These facts will be represented by symbols. Even
the exact placement of the symbols will have altered, since there will probably be a correction in
the map for distortions and angle of view in the photograph. That correction is expressly designed
to pull out the underlying facts of physical location of the original features, and ignore the
actual re-expression of those locational facts in the photograph.

I have actually now looked at the Act and can honestly find no part of it that comes even near to
suggesting that there is an infringement. There is little discussion of adaptations, but the section
that treats this explicitly, Section 21, gives definitions for literary, dramatic and musical works
but does not include artistic works. [For the benefit of those that have not seen the Act, copyright
material is divided into a number of defined categories of which Artistic Works is one. These
descriptions refer not to everyday use of the words but to the definitions given in the Act.
Photographs are stated to be Artistic Works]. Now there are over 300 sections to the Act, and
obviously I've not read them all, but I have looked fairly carefully through the summary of
sections. Naturally I may have missed something and there may be case law that has addressed this
sort of problem, but at present I remain sceptical!

It may be useful for folks to know that Acts of Parliament from 1988 onwards are available on-line
at www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk

>>BTW Why isn't my copyright of my carefully crafted roof not breached?
>
>Because you have placed it in the public domain.

Having now looked at the Act, I see that buildings permanently placed are specifically excluded.

On a slightly separate issue, I recall that in this newsgroup a few years ago it was said that
copyright exists for 70 years from an author's death, and that this was a recent change to bring us
into line with international practice. I see this Act states 50 years still. Has it been amended or
was this 70 year stuff actually not the case?

--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House
 
Tim,

How about the case where you capture the positions i.e. grid references of the mountain summits from
the map aswell as the names and heights ?

Surely if you were to then overlay these on your own map in the same projection then you would be
infringing copyright ? But having said that, the map projection is a standard algorithm i.e.
transverse mercator using the airy ellipsiod which presumably is not copyright and the mountains can
only exist in one position so if the OS maps and your maps are accurate then the data will be
identical regardless.

Unless the whole of the British Isles are crown copyright :) ?

Andrew

"Tim Jackson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Saunders wrote on Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:18:37 -0000....
> > What about summit lists then? Aren't they derived from OS maps?
>
> The underlying information may be derived from OS maps, yes. But copyright protects the form of a
> work or the way it is expressed, not the underlying ideas or information.
>
> If you trace an OS map with a pencil and tracing paper, or even just from memory, then some of the
> form or "expression" is still copied from the OS original. (Though you may have added further
> aspects of form and expression, especially if you've done it in some stylised way, with the result
> that you get a new copyright of your own as well.)
>
> But if you make a list of names and heights of mountains, you've not copied any of the form or
> expression of the original map. You've just derived information from it.
>
> The term "derived work" actually comes from US copyright law, by the way, and I don't think it is
> used in UK law. The basic principle is similar, however. In the US, the question is whether any of
> the form or expression of the allegedly "derived" work is derived from the original. Not merely
> whether any information or ideas were derived from it.
>
> --
> Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
> Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
Michael Farthing wrote on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:36:53 +0000.... [in response to Chris Street]
>
> Thanks for the reply, and to Tim for his comments.
>
> Bringing the two together, I'm still at a loss why I am breaching copyright by making a map using
> a copyright photograph. It has been admitted that I can take and reuse facts from a copyright
> source, and I cannot see that making a map is doing anything different. The only thing that has
> remained of the photograph in the map is the physical facts. These facts will be represented by
> symbols. Even the exact placement of the symbols will have altered, since there will probably be a
> correction in the map for distortions and angle of view in the photograph.

It seems to me that the placement is really what you are deriving from the form of the original
photo. So if the placement is changed beyond all recognition, compared to the original photo, then I
would agree with you. But is it? I would imagine not - you'd still be able to see the
correspondence, even though you've removed the distortions.

> That correction is expressly designed to pull out the underlying facts of physical location of the
> original features, and ignore the actual re-expression of those locational facts in the
> photograph.

I think the problem is the view you are taking of the word "expression". Remember that the copyright
in a photo is "irrespective of artistic quality" (CDPA section 4(1)). So if you are deriving
something substantial from the form of the photo - such as the placement discussed above - then I
think that counts.

It may be that the photo is just a record of the placement of the various features on the ground.
But since artistic merit is irrelevant, it still qualifies for copyright protection. If you derive
the placement from the photo, you likely infringe. If you derive it from elsewhere, e.g. a survey of
your own, then you don't. Despite the fact that the end result of these two procedures might be
identical.

> I have actually now looked at the Act and can honestly find no part of it that comes even near to
> suggesting that there is an infringement. There is little discussion of adaptations, but the
> section that treats this explicitly, Section 21, gives definitions for literary, dramatic and
> musical works but does not include artistic works.

Right, which is why I think the relevant test is whether you are "reproducing the work in any
material form" (section 17(2)). Is your map a reproduction in a material form of relevant aspects of
the photo, such as the placement of the various physical features?

Note that section 21(3) contains a complete definition of what "adaptation" means. It's restricted
to things that are not really relevant to the present question, e.g. the film "Lord of the Rings" is
an adaptation of Tolkien's book.

[snip]
> It may be useful for folks to know that Acts of Parliament from 1988 onwards are available on-line
> at www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk
>
> >>BTW Why isn't my copyright of my carefully crafted roof not breached?
[snip]
> Having now looked at the Act, I see that buildings permanently placed are specifically excluded.

That's a good point, which I'd missed in my previous post. (It's section 62 if anyone wants to
look it up.)

This is probably more important than section 31 that I cited previously, since under section 62 it's
not necessary to wonder about whether your roof was included incidentally in the aerial photo. But
if the photo was of a much wider area, then I think both sections would apply.

> On a slightly separate issue, I recall that in this newsgroup a few years ago it was said that
> copyright exists for 70 years from an author's death, and that this was a recent change to bring
> us into line with international practice. I see this Act states 50 years still. Has it been
> amended or was this 70 year stuff actually not the case?

It was amended in the early 1990s, as a result of an EU directive.

The HMSO site gives the original unamended form of the Act. If you dig deep enough, it should also
give the statutory instrument which effected the amendment, but trying to put it all together would
be a PITA.

For that reason, I prefer the version at http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index1.htm . It
incorporates this and various other amendments, though even then I'm not sure it is 100% up to date.
The 70 year term is in amended section 12 (but note that there are various exceptions).

--
Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
Andrew W wrote on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:10:19 +0000 (UTC)....
> Tim,
>
> How about the case where you capture the positions i.e. grid references of the mountain summits
> from the map aswell as the names and heights ?

No infringement, if it's still just a list. You're not reproducing any of the form of the original
map, only the underlying information.

> Surely if you were to then overlay these on your own map in the same projection then you would be
> infringing copyright ?

Yes, probably, because you've now recreated the form again, or some of it anyway. And it was derived
(indirectly) from the original map.

> But having said that, the map projection is a standard algorithm i.e. transverse mercator using
> the airy ellipsiod which presumably is not copyright and the mountains can only exist in one
> position so if the OS maps and your maps are accurate then the data will be identical regardless.

True, but the issue is still whether or not you've (indirectly) copied the OS map. If that's where
the data came from and if you've recreated a substantial part of the form of the original map
(perhaps with substantial modifications as well), then I think you have copied it (or a substantial
part of it). If you did your own survey, without reference to the OS map, then you haven't.

> Unless the whole of the British Isles are crown copyright :) ?

Maybe the OS would like to think that. :)

In the days when the OS was the only surveyor of the UK, the effect was much the same. If anyone
produced a map that was even remotely accurate, there was an overwhelming inference that they must
have copied it directly or indirectly from an OS map.

But nowadays that's no longer quite so true. There are other surveys, aerial and satellite photos,
or you can just do your own survey using your GPS.

If you publish a map, the OS might still bluster that you must have got it from them. Since they are
still in a dominant position, it may indeed be possible to draw such an inference, but it's not as
strong as in the past. If you can come up with evidence that you based your map on something else
then there's nothing the OS can do about it. (You might of course have a problem with a different
copyright owner, depending what you based your map on.)

--
Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
Chris Street wrote on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:08:29 GMT....
>
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:14:28 +0000, Michael Farthing <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >BTW Why isn't my copyright of my carefully crafted roof not breached?
>
> Because you have placed it in the public domain.

No, I don't think so. The "public domain" is another concept from US copyright law, with no exact
counterpart in this country. I'm not an expert on US law, but my understanding is that when a work
enters the public domain in the US, then the US copyright ceases to exist.

Even in the US, a copyright work will only go into the public domain for certain specific reasons.
For example, if you publish a statement saying "I dedicate my work to the public domain". [1]

If you published such a statement in this country, there's no mechanism in our law for the copyright
to cease to exist before the end of its normal term. I'd speculate that an English court would say
"We understand what you meant, so we'll treat it as if you have given the whole world an
unconditional free licence under the copyright, so as to give the same effect. But the copyright
will continue to exist."

But of course, Michael has presumably done no such thing in the case of his carefully crafted roof.
The mere fact that it is out in the open doesn't put it into the public domain in the copyright
sense. (It *is* in the public domain in the sense of, say, the law relating to confidentiality and
trade secrets.)

The reasons why Michael's copyright isn't infringed by its inclusion in an aerial photo are
sections 31 and 62 of the CDPA (see my earlier post about section 31 and my latest response to
Michael about section
62).

____________
[63] Historically, I imagine one of the most common reasons for works to enter the public domain in
the US was failure to comply with the requirements of US copyright law relating to registration
and a copyright notice. But that's no longer true since they changed their law in order to join
the Berne Convention. Works also enter the public domain when the copyright expires at the end
of the term.)

--
Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
In message <[email protected]>, Tim Jackson
<[email protected]> writes

>> On a slightly separate issue, I recall that in this newsgroup a few years ago it was said that
>> copyright exists for 70 years from an author's death, and that this was a recent change to bring
>> us into line with international practice. I see this Act states 50 years still. Has it been
>> amended or was this 70 year stuff actually not the case?
>
>It was amended in the early 1990s, as a result of an EU directive.
>
>The HMSO site gives the original unamended form of the Act. If you dig deep enough, it should also
>give the statutory instrument which effected the amendment, but trying to put it all together would
>be a PITA.

For the record it is a 1995 SI no 3297. Thanks for the info. I have now satisfied myself about what
happens to those works whose copyright had lapsed but were still within the 70 years. I had assumed
that they would have just stayed lapsed - but no - the copyright was revived with the proviso that
those who had already jumped in were not guilty of anything and could carry on (roughly speaking).

--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back