Copyright?

[TheViking]

How are the rules for copyright? I have a few pictures from an online book, I'd like to share. :wink:

[Gary]

Little Viking do you mean for BCUK or in general?

Copyright law and trade mark law is very complicated - but as a general rule if you give the original sourse credit you should be ok with copyright and as for trademarks as long as what you say is true as trade mark isnt worth squat.

But dont take my word for it - try Danzo on BB he's a legal boff or I have a friend and ex-member of this forum who is a whizz kid corperate guy in London I can give you his details and you can try him.

Hope that helped.

[TheViking]

Thank you. Mostly for BCUK. :-) I forgot to mention that the pictures are from the swedish army survival handbook, which is a public, online book and can be found here ! (it's BTW much much better than US armys, it gives detailed info on how much each plant gives in calories, set up nets for fishing, etc. and has VERY good pictures)

So i should be alright if it's an online book and I mention the source? :-)

[Adi007]

but as a general rule if you give the original source credit you should be ok with copyright and as for trademarks as long as what you say is true as trade mark isnt worth squat.

Sourcing credit doesn't mean a thing ... I could tell you here that I will let you use XYZ in a book or on a website and then sue you later because I could say it wasn't me that typed this but my cat (or maybe that cat from next door, I don't like the look of that). The only way you can be certain of not getting sued when you use anything that belongs to others is to get the permission of copyright holder - and you would need that in writing. This kind of declaration would need to include the fact that the copyright holder declares that they are in fact the copyright holder (and not passing something off as theirs) and they they are giving you permission to use their material in a particular way. I know because I have to do this sort of thing all the time.

There are fair use laws but these are complex and usually only applies to reviewing and journalism. Some material also have policies that allow you to make use of their material as long as you credit it - but never assume anything.

A lot of the time I find that the hassle in trying to get permission is not worth it and it's far better/quicker to create original material or new material based on the old one (derived) along with changes and improvements.

[khimbar]

That's a cool looking pdf though. Anyone fancy having a stab at translating it for us or know where there's an English language equivalent. About the only word I could work out was rucksack. :?:

[Gary]

Sourcing credit doesn't mean a thing ... I could tell you here that I will let you use XYZ in a book or on a website and then sue you later because I could say it wasn't me that typed this but my cat (or maybe that cat from next door, I don't like the look of that). The only way you can be certain of not getting sued when you use anything that belongs to others is to get the permission of copyright holder - and you would need that in writing. This kind of declaration would need to include the fact that the copyright holder declares that they are in fact the copyright holder (and not passing something off as theirs) and they they are giving you permission to use their material in a particular way. I know because I have to do this sort of thing all the time.

There are fair use laws but these are complex and usually only applies to reviewing and journalism. Some material also have policies that allow you to make use of their material as long as you credit it - but never assume anything.

A lot of the time I find that the hassle in trying to get permission is not worth it and it's far better/quicker to create original material or new material based on the old one (derived) along with changes and improvements.

Just as well I said dont take my word for it!!

[Gary]

That's a cool looking pdf though. Anyone fancy having a stab at translating it for us or know where there's an English language equivalent. About the only word I could work out was rucksack. :?:

Khimbar I dont think there is a english version avaialble. I have the book format of this as well as several of Lars Falt's book and I think you'll find even in Swedish the pictures speak for themselves.

[khimbar]

229 pages. Wonder if work would notice if I printed it out?
And I agree about the pics they look pretty useful. Thanks for the link.

[bothyman]

Thats the same one thats on Abbe's website, both books are very good .

If you haven't looked at his site you should its excellent

>> http://web.telia.com/~u18313429/

MickT(Scotland) :biggthump

[Hoodoo]

Here's what they tell us where I work.

copyright

[Gary]

Cheers HOODOO - Thats the term I was looking for 'fair use', thats what I meant but credit the original source.

I have just checked this out with Zackery and his take on copy right is that unless you plagerise (sp? - steal) or in some way openly set out to make profit from copy righted item or sources you are ok as long as you credit the owner of the source. That said as the swedish army handbook is on the public domain and down loadable, as long as you dont plan to print it and sell it you should be ok using it as a source of information.

At least thats what I think he said in English!

But again as you have seen above peoples take on these rather vague laws are often different so always check or err on the safe side.

Also different countries have differnet laws so what is permissible in Sweden might be a flogging offence in Iraq!

[TheViking]

Thanks guys. :biggthump

[Adi007]

The bottom line of all this is that fair use of not, bcUK doesn't have permission from the copyright holder. Whatever individuals want to do is their own business and if someone kicks off about it, it's their responsibility. When members post here they accept responsibility for any consequences of what happens but to avoid aggravation it's best to avoid duplicating copyrighted material. Links are fine, quotes are fine, but wholescale duplications is a grey area and we don't have time to deal with it. If you want to put it on your own site TheViking/Gary, fine, that's up to you but here we can do without the agro.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

[jamesdevine]

I am no leagal brain.

But I would imagine that if you went out and duplicated and tested a shelter type displayed in the text for example and took your own photos and wrote your own review of how easy it was to construct and how comfortable/waterproof it was would be of more benefit and more enjoyable to read by all the BCUK members as well as yourself and I would not imagine you being in breach of copyright law.

This is just my opinion and thoughts. As I said I am no legal brain.

James

[Adi007]

I am no leagal brain.

But I would imagine that if you went out and duplicated and tested a shelter type displayed in the text for example and took your own photos and wrote your own review of how easy it was to construct and how comfortable/waterproof it was would be of more benefit and more enjoyable to read by all the BCUK members as well as yourself and I would not imagine you being in breach of copyright law.

This is just my opinion and thoughts. As I said I am no legal brain.

James

Well said!

[TheViking]

I am no leagal brain.

But I would imagine that if you went out and duplicated and tested a shelter type displayed in the text for example and took your own photos and wrote your own review of how easy it was to construct and how comfortable/waterproof it was would be of more benefit and more enjoyable to read by all the BCUK members as well as yourself and I would not imagine you being in breach of copyright law.

This is just my opinion and thoughts. As I said I am no legal brain.

James

I have done that often, but when you do you get a lot of background in the picture which i don't like and a drawing (as in the swedish army handbook) shows more clear IMO.

[jamesdevine]

I am also no great photographer(previous reviews you have done have very good by the way :biggthump ) so I can certainly relate to that. But it is as I see the only way to really avoid the copyright police. You could also include a link to the pdf after the review in a why to clear up any questions that the read may have. Kind of like a Bibliography so to speak. It also give credit to the original source.

Again only my thoughts.

James

[TheViking]

I am also no great photographer(previous reviews you have done have very good by the way :biggthump ) so I can certainly relate to that. But it is as I see the only way to really avoid the copyright police. You could also include a link to the pdf after the review in a why to clear up any questions that the read may have. Kind of like a Bibliography so to speak. It also give credit to the original source.

Again only my thoughts.

James

Yeah. I think i'll just stay clear of copying anything, to be on the safe side. :-)

[tomtom]

if you want to copyright something.. say a picture.. do you have to apply for copyright like you would a patent.. or do you just say.. this is my picture, for example

'Images and text on this site may not be reproduced without the express permission of the owner.
Copyright © 2003 - 2005, ME'

[Adi007]

Copyright is automatic to the creator - tagging it is jsut what people do. As I'm typing this I'm theoretically copyrighting it to me!!!

[tomtom]

ah right, thanks for clearing that up.. is there specific ways that you have to state that your copyright i notice dates often come in to it!

[greg2935]

I also note further down (and this is the bit that would be useful for BC) that 'The Copyright Act provides that protection begins at the moment "original works of authorship" are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" ': if what you are describing is a method of firelighting that was not discovered by the author (i.e. not original work), the way I read this (and I am not a lawyer), you cannot claim copyright on the actual method, only on the description of the method, I would say you are therefore at liberty to describe the method for yourself without quoting anything as long as you do not use the authors original description, photos or drawings. Anyone know more?

Greg

[match]

... dusts off his law degree and Intellectual Property Honours thesis... :-)

Well, copyright law applies to:

writing
music - both written and recordings
films
drama (plays etc)
typographical layouts (i.e publishing).

It covers the creation of an original object NOT the idea behind the object - i.e the story idea for a book is not copyright, only the actual story itself written down. (i.e, copyright does not stop you writing a book about a young boy who becomes a wizard and goes to wizard school - but it does stop you calling him Harry Potter :wink: ). It also protects against dimensional adaptation - i.e making a sculpture of a painting, or photographing a painting. Repainting the original scene is obviously fine.

You do not have to expressly register for or claim copyright in any way - it is automatic on creation of the work (specifically, on public access to the work). The copyright statement you usually see (i.e Copyright Joe Bloggs, 2003) is purely to allow the rules on time, author etc to be tied to a person and date.

Copyright provides two forms of protection - it allows the creator to control use - i.e publication, copying, distribution, public showing/playing etc.

It also provides what are known as moral rights - i.e the right to be known as the author, the right not to have your work 'diminished' - i.e reproduced badly, translated etc - things that protect your 'reputation' as the creator.

Copyright lasts for 70 years for 'real/human' authors, after death, for written works (usually 70 years from creation for companies/organisations).

There are several 'fair use' clauses that allow you to use works in certain ways - these include:

News reporting/criticism/reviewing (i.e quotes in newspapers/magazines etc)

Educational or research use - quoting journals in your science research etc, or reading books to children in schools

Note that the educational use has some extra caveats, namely that you are only allowed to represent small amounts - which must be small in quality, not quantity (i.e reproducing a whole chapter of text on how a car works is 'the same' as reproducing a diagram on how a car works). This has been quantified as 5% of total in relation to photocopying of documents, but this is not a legally binding figure, more a recommendation, and any amount of copying could be considered an infringement.


Right, well in this specific example, you would probably be allowed to reproduce some of the original work, since it is publicly available. However, reproducing it in a different form (cutting out pictures, translating to a different language) might fall foul of the moral rights or the author. All reproductions would need to credit the original work, and would have to be small amounts (i.e a single example of how to build a fire might be ok, copying all their pictures and text on fire-making would be out. Of course, reading the book, re-writing it in English using your own words, and taking pictures of your implementation of their methods would be fine :-)

One last thing, all of the above is UK Copyright law - which for all intents and purposes is the same as general European (and in most cases American) law. However, as this example would involve publication on the internet of the copyrighted material, the law of any country where the publication occurred (which is defined as the place the server hosting the files lives AND all countries in which the site can be viewed) could be used.

If anyone has any other questions on copyright, trademark patents etc I could answer, either PM me or start a legal thread!

Goes back to his day job of IT support... :?:

[chris]

Here's a good site
www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Interesting to read that what I have just done (linked without the authors permission) has been deemed illegal in some circumstances and not in others.

[Viking]

Why not try and email the Swedish army Survival school at K3 and ask them?
overlevnadsskolan@k3.mil.se

If they can´t help you maybe they can point you to someone who can.

[spamel]

Hi all

Would it be feasible to download, say, one of the tutorials posted on BCUK to my PDA if I wanted to take the information into the great outdoors and try to put it into practise? I would not be transmitting this information to somebody else through another website, it would be for my own personal use. I only ask because of that blurb at the bottom of the page (scroll down as far as you can, there it is!).

Maybe a mod could clear this up please?

[Not Bob]

Does the bit at the bottom of the page mean that if I post an article here its copyright belongs to BCUK or does it still belong to me?

[match]

Would it be feasible to download, say, one of the tutorials posted on BCUK to my PDA if I wanted to take the information into the great outdoors and try to put it into practise? I would not be transmitting this information to somebody else through another website, it would be for my own personal use. I only ask because of that blurb at the bottom of the page (scroll down as far as you can, there it is!).

If a book is published, be it in paper or online form, then you are allowed to take your 'received copy' - i.e the one you bought or downloaded and do anything you like with it, except copy it really. the fact they give it away free is unrelated to copyright - they've just chosen not to charge for it....

Interesting to read that what I have just done (linked without the authors permission) has been deemed illegal in some circumstances and not in others.

It is usually deemed that linking is ok, provided you make it clear that its an external link, and name the author/site. So, for example:

BushcraftUK is ok

My personal bushcraft site! is not :wink:

Does the bit at the bottom of the page mean that if I post an article here its copyright belongs to BCUK or does it still belong to me?

The 'framework' of the site (logos's, layout etc) is copyright BCUK. However, the articles themselves remain copyright the original author - i.e you (it even got your 'name' at the top of it!). BCUK is merely a publisher for your articles, although it does reserve the right to joint-authorship (i.e editing your posts), and to censorship if necessary. Bear in mind that legally, this means that both you and BCUK are responsible for not breaking any laws with these posts, although there is a general exception that the BCUK mods would be excused if you posted copyrighted material and they didn't notice (but not if someone pointed it out to them and they did nothing...).

[chris]

Hiya Match

Good stuff - I was refering to an article in the Templetons 10 myths about copyright site that I put a link to above. Here it is again - www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

He states that in the U.S some people have been done in civil court for posting links on websites without/against the authors knowledge/permission.

Crazy - is that not what the web is all about. Then again if someone who runs a not so good company or site and puts a links list on their site to companies/sites that are are well respected - do these people not have a right to say, hey, get my site off your links list - we don't want to be associated with you or your doings etc. :?:

An absolute minefield, my advice would be to ask first. :wink: