Copyright period for English newspapers

[Richard Smith]

Is anyone able to tell me when old English newspapers come out of
copyright in the UK? The normal rule is 70 years from the death of the
author, but the concept of an author seems fairly ill-defined for a
newspaper.

Richard

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Richard Smith
Is anyone able to tell me when old English newspapers come out of
copyright in the UK?  The normal rule is 70 years from the death of the
author, but the concept of an author seems fairly ill-defined for a
newspaper.

I think that in the case of a publication with no acknowledged author,
such as a newspaper article, it is 70 years from the date of publication.

[Richard Smith]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Richard Smith
Is anyone able to tell me when old English newspapers come out of
copyright in the UK? The normal rule is 70 years from the death of the
author, but the concept of an author seems fairly ill-defined for a
newspaper.

I think that in the case of a publication with no acknowledged author,
such as a newspaper article, it is 70 years from the date of publication.

Thanks. That would make sense.

Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Richard Smith
Is anyone able to tell me when old English newspapers come out of
copyright in the UK? The normal rule is 70 years from the death of the
author, but the concept of an author seems fairly ill-defined for a
newspaper.

I think that in the case of a publication with no acknowledged author,
such as a newspaper article, it is 70 years from the date of publication.

Thanks. That would make sense.
Richard

But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by a
commercial archiving company; the _content_ may be out of copyright, as
may the physical layout, but if the only access you have is to a scan
made by someone, I think it is likely that they may have some claim from
the date they scanned it. You can almost certainly transcribe from their
scan, but not reproduce their scan itself. IANAL though.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Richard Smith
Is anyone able to tell me when old English newspapers come out of
copyright in the UK?  The normal rule is 70 years from the death of the
author, but the concept of an author seems fairly ill-defined for a
newspaper.

I think that in the case of a publication with no acknowledged author,
such as a newspaper article, it is 70 years from the date of
publication.

Thanks.  That would make sense.
Richard

But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by a
commercial archiving company; the _content_ may be out of copyright, as
may the physical layout, but if the only access you have is to a scan
made by someone, I think it is likely that they may have some claim from
the date they scanned it. You can almost certainly transcribe from their
scan, but not reproduce their scan itself. IANAL though.

Good point.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Richard Smith
Is anyone able to tell me when old English newspapers come out of
copyright in the UK?  The normal rule is 70 years from the death of
the author, but the concept of an author seems fairly ill-defined
for a newspaper.

I think that in the case of a publication with no acknowledged
author, such as a newspaper article, it is 70 years from the date of
publication.

Thanks.  That would make sense.
Richard

But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by a
commercial archiving company; the _content_ may be out of copyright, as
may the physical layout, but if the only access you have is to a scan
made by someone, I think it is likely that they may have some claim
from the date they scanned it. You can almost certainly transcribe from
their scan, but not reproduce their scan itself. IANAL though.

Good point.

I doubt that.

Scanning is not a creative action,
so only the possible original copyright persists.

<https://www.quora.com/Can-copyright-be-claimed-on-a-scanned-image>

[MB]

The BNA has this on thei website


https://help-and-advice.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/knowledgebase/articles/1863805-what-if-i-am-creating-my-own-transcriptions-from-n

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Richard Smith
Is anyone able to tell me when old English newspapers come out of
copyright in the UK?  The normal rule is 70 years from the death of
the author, but the concept of an author seems fairly ill-defined
for a newspaper.

I think that in the case of a publication with no acknowledged
author, such as a newspaper article, it is 70 years from the date of
publication.

Thanks.  That would make sense.
Richard

But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by a
commercial archiving company; the _content_ may be out of copyright, as
may the physical layout, but if the only access you have is to a scan
made by someone, I think it is likely that they may have some claim
from the date they scanned it. You can almost certainly transcribe from
their scan, but not reproduce their scan itself. IANAL though.

Good point.

I doubt that.
Scanning is not a creative action,

Legally it could be, you are creating a new work.

Post by Evertjan.
so only the possible original copyright persists.
<https://www.quora.com/Can-copyright-be-claimed-on-a-scanned-image>

[Evertjan.]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Evertjan.
Scanning is not a creative action,

Legally it could be, you are creating a new work.

No, not "work" in the sense of the Berner convention.

Photographs are ONLY a "literary and artistic work" if some NEW "artistic"
propperty is added, which in a scan clearly is NOT the case.

Remember that even the pictures taken by a chimp that stole a camera did not
meet that requirement.

<https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/07/462245189/federal-judge-
says-monkey-cant-own-copyright-to-his-selfie>

Berner convention:
"The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production
in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or
form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings;
lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or
dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb
shows; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to
which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to
cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture,
engraving and litography; photographic works to which are assimilated works
expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art,
illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to
geography, topography, architecture or science."

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 23:44:24 +0100, "Evertjan."

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Evertjan.
Scanning is not a creative action,

Legally it could be, you are creating a new work.

No, not "work" in the sense of the Berner convention.
Photographs are ONLY a "literary and artistic work" if some NEW "artistic"
propperty is added, which in a scan clearly is NOT the case.

It is at the least creating a representation in a different media.
There is further new creation if the process involves a significant
degree of "repair". The original copyright remains but further
copyright might be created attached to the new version of the original
work if there is sufficient value added. The Berne convention is not
the only legal matter to consider; each jurisdiction might have its
own subtleties which could have significant differing consequences.
While it entitles mutual recognition of copyright by the signatories
it does not endow a copyright holder in country A with more rights
(rather than the same rights) in country B than a citizen of country B
enjoys so if country B deems that a particular form of reproduction
has created new copyright then that applies in country B and the new
author is entitled to the rewards (as also is the original author to
his, if any). Your case only applies if it matches the rules in a
particular country.
<snip>

[Evertjan.]

Post by Charles Ellson
It is at the least creating a representation in a different media.

Not "creative" in the selse of the Berner Convention,
rolling a specific sigarette would be under copyright then

Post by Charles Ellson
There is further new creation if the process involves a significant
degree of "repair".

Only if the repair is done by a person, not by a programme.

Post by Charles Ellson
The original copyright remains but further
copyright might be created attached to the new version of the original
work if there is sufficient value added.

No, value has nothing to do with it.

Post by Charles Ellson
The Berne convention is not
the only legal matter to consider; each jurisdiction might have its
own subtleties which could have significant differing consequences.

True, but unimportant for the person in another country, unless both laws
cover the same extension.

Post by Charles Ellson
While it entitles mutual recognition of copyright by the signatories
it does not endow a copyright holder in country A with more rights
(rather than the same rights) in country B than a citizen of country B
enjoys so if country B deems that a particular form of reproduction
has created new copyright then that applies in country B and the new
author is entitled to the rewards (as also is the original author to
his, if any).

Well, I will skip that undoubtedly important distionction.

Post by Charles Ellson
Your case only applies if it matches the rules in a
particular country.

My case?

When a scan of a "creative" original of more than say 160 years ago is
published on the web, words like "Crown copyright" do not have any meaning
outside the confines of the U.K..

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
It is at the least creating a representation in a different media.

Not "creative" in the selse of the Berner Convention,

(In English, it's the "Berne Convention" - there's no r at the end of
the first word. I appreciate that in Germanic languages there is.)

Post by Evertjan.
rolling a specific sigarette would be under copyright then

You are hooked on the word "copyright". Yes, it was in the original
subject, but even the original poster has confirmed that he intended "or
other similar rights issues". Threads do drift - or, as in this case,
get clarified.

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
There is further new creation if the process involves a significant
degree of "repair".

Only if the repair is done by a person, not by a programme.

I question that. Especially if the programme is not public. Certainly
extra rights might be generated, whether within copyright specifically
or outside it.

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
The original copyright remains but further
copyright might be created attached to the new version of the original
work if there is sufficient value added.

No, value has nothing to do with it.

Again, that may apply specifically in the case of copyright; adding
value may involve other rights.

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
The Berne convention is not
the only legal matter to consider; each jurisdiction might have its
own subtleties which could have significant differing consequences.

True, but unimportant for the person in another country, unless both laws
cover the same extension.

Irrelevant in this case: all parties involved are in England or Wales.
(And I don't _think_ there are any relevant differences in laws relating
to _this_ matter between England and Wales.)

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
While it entitles mutual recognition of copyright by the signatories
it does not endow a copyright holder in country A with more rights
(rather than the same rights) in country B than a citizen of country B
enjoys so if country B deems that a particular form of reproduction
has created new copyright then that applies in country B and the new
author is entitled to the rewards (as also is the original author to
his, if any).

Well, I will skip that undoubtedly important distionction.

Because you're obsessed with copyright alone, whereas the question was
whether copyright or other matters - OK, not originally stated as such,
but understood by most readers - would impede his use of the material.

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
Your case only applies if it matches the rules in a
particular country.

My case?
When a scan of a "creative" original of more than say 160 years ago is
published on the web, words like "Crown copyright" do not have any meaning
outside the confines of the U.K..

1. All participants are within the UK for this case.
2. Nobody mentioned Crown copyright.
3. The scan question has been clarified as irrelevant: the scanning
activity itself _does_ confer some extra rights (which may or may not
come under copyright), but the OP has explained that the entity which
did the scanning are not going to invoke those additional rights.
JPG
---


LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way we can
even _draft_ any "new deal" (assuming MV3 fails as expected).
--
Those who _don't_ favour the "revoke" petition have nowhere to express that.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 233soft.uk #fairpetitions

[Evertjan.]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
It is at the least creating a representation in a different media.

Not "creative" in the selse of the Berner Convention,

(In English, it's the "Berne Convention" - there's no r at the end of
the first word. I appreciate that in Germanic languages there is.)

Well, the place is valled "Bern" in Bern, not "Berne",
and "Berner" is the adjective form,
but what the hell does it matter, I am not in your schoolclass.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Evertjan.
rolling a specific sigarette would be under copyright then

You are hooked on the word "copyright". Yes, it was in the original
subject, but even the original poster has confirmed that he intended "or
other similar rights issues". Threads do drift - or, as in this case,
get clarified.

I am discussing copyright and the Berner Convention here, not skillfull
sigarette rolling.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
There is further new creation if the process involves a significant
degree of "repair".

Only if the repair is done by a person, not by a programme.

I question that. Especially if the programme is not public. Certainly
extra rights might be generated, whether within copyright specifically
or outside it.

And I am stating just the copyright part, not local laws in Timbuktu or
elsewhere.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
The original copyright remains but further
copyright might be created attached to the new version of the original
work if there is sufficient value added.

No, value has nothing to do with it.

Again, that may apply specifically in the case of copyright; adding
value may involve other rights.

I wrote that, what is the matter with you. You can make another scope for
your argument, my scope is copyright law.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
The Berne convention is not
the only legal matter to consider; each jurisdiction might have its
own subtleties which could have significant differing consequences.

True, but unimportant for the person in another country, unless both
laws cover the same extension.

Irrelevant in this case: all parties involved are in England or Wales.
(And I don't _think_ there are any relevant differences in laws relating
to _this_ matter between England and Wales.)

What case?

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
While it entitles mutual recognition of copyright by the signatories
it does not endow a copyright holder in country A with more rights
(rather than the same rights) in country B than a citizen of country B
enjoys so if country B deems that a particular form of reproduction
has created new copyright then that applies in country B and the new
author is entitled to the rewards (as also is the original author to
his, if any).

Well, I will skip that undoubtedly important distinction.

Because you're obsessed with copyright alone, whereas the question was
whether copyright or other matters - OK, not originally stated as such,
but understood by most readers - would impede his use of the material.

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson
Your case only applies if it matches the rules in a
particular country.

My case?
When a scan of a "creative" original of more than say 160 years ago is
published on the web, words like "Crown copyright" do not have any
meaning outside the confines of the U.K..

1. All participants are within the UK for this case.
2. Nobody mentioned Crown copyright.
3. The scan question has been clarified as irrelevant: the scanning
activity itself _does_ confer some extra rights (which may or may not
come under copyright), but the OP has explained that the entity which
did the scanning are not going to invoke those additional rights.

Are they?

And even so, that is outside the scope of copyright law.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by a
commercial archiving company; the _content_ may be out of copyright, as
may the physical layout, but if the only access you have is to a scan
made by someone, I think it is likely that they may have some claim
from the date they scanned it. You can almost certainly transcribe from
their scan, but not reproduce their scan itself. IANAL though.

Good point.

I doubt that.
Scanning is not a creative action,

Legally it could be, you are creating a new work.

Post by Evertjan.
so only the possible original copyright persists.
<https://www.quora.com/Can-copyright-be-claimed-on-a-scanned-image>

OK, it might not be _copyright_ that is the relevant rights legislation.
But there is _something_. There is _some_ justification: if a company
has expended time and equipment, and therefore money, in making scans,
and you just (say) print off and sell the scans you've downloaded from
their website, they're entitled to be peeved. Ancestry and FMP being the
obvious companies for this newsgroup. (Ancestry at least - probably all
of them - watermark their images; for Ancestry, it's faint leaf
symbols.)

JPG
---


LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way forward.
--
Fair petitions? See 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions @jpeg_G6;
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770

[Evertjan.]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
OK, it might not be _copyright_ that is the relevant rights legislation.
But there is _something_. There is _some_ justification: if a company
has expended time and equipment, and therefore money, in making scans,
and you just (say) print off and sell the scans you've downloaded from
their website, they're entitled to be peeved. Ancestry and FMP being the
obvious companies for this newsgroup. (Ancestry at least - probably all
of them - watermark their images; for Ancestry, it's faint leaf
symbols.)

Nonsense, this thread is ABOUT copyright.

And [international] law is not about "some justification",
it is not "common law".

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Evertjan.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
OK, it might not be _copyright_ that is the relevant rights legislation.
But there is _something_. There is _some_ justification: if a company
has expended time and equipment, and therefore money, in making scans,
and you just (say) print off and sell the scans you've downloaded from
their website, they're entitled to be peeved. Ancestry and FMP being the
obvious companies for this newsgroup. (Ancestry at least - probably all
of them - watermark their images; for Ancestry, it's faint leaf
symbols.)

Nonsense, this thread is ABOUT copyright.

Nobody, including you or me, _owns_ a thread on an unmoderated usenet
'group.

Although the OP used the word copyright in the subject, it was clear to
me that what is of concern to him is whether he can use information from
a newspaper; he's interested in anything that might cause a problem,
whether actual copyright or otherwise. I raised - and he thanked me for
doing so - the point that (AIUI - IANAL) the _content_ is the original
copyright (whoever if anyone owns that), but the _image_ - the scan -
might involve some rights (copyright or something else) of the entity
who scanned it, since they have expended time/money/equipment to
_create_ the scan. He has told us that the entity which created the scan
are not going to exercise any rights they might have in that respect,
but they - the scanning entity - are, wisely, not going to give any
advice about the copyright, if any, in the original text.

Post by Evertjan.
And [international] law is not about "some justification",
it is not "common law".

I think the OP and the scanning organisation are both in England; the
newspaper, I judge from the subject, definitely is. Therefore English,
rather than international, law may be relevant. But anyway, when I
referred to some justification, I was referring to any rights (copyright
or otherwise) that might vest in the scanning entity - and it seems
they're not going to exercise any such rights, so _that_ matter is moot.
So we're back to the question of original copyright, if any remains.
This would depend on whether the original contributor released any
rights they might have to the newspaper at the time of its publication -
a common condition these days, but I don't know if it was 100 years ago.
If the author managed to retain copyright: if the paper was published
100 years ago, and one might assume the contributor was 21 or older,
then they're going to be dead by now, but possibly less than 70 years
ago.
The OP hasn't told us where he's planning to use the material. (There
was/is no need to reveal this.)
LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way forward.
--
Fair petitions? See 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions @jpeg_G6;
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770

[Evertjan.]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Although the OP used the word copyright in the subject, it was clear to
me that what is of concern to him is whether he can use information from
a newspaper; he's interested in anything that might cause a problem,
whether actual copyright or otherwise.

Reading between the lines and being clear about something might be clear to
you and Theresa May, but is NOT a good way to understand the subject of a
thread.

Offcourse, copying Mohammed grafitti might 'cause a problem', as might
copying your old teachers stereotype gestures. So might a flat tire. But
extending a thread's subject to encompass your personal 'between the lines'
understanding, while permissible, would imo not be advisable here.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Evertjan.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Although the OP used the word copyright in the subject, it was clear to
me that what is of concern to him is whether he can use information from
a newspaper; he's interested in anything that might cause a problem,
whether actual copyright or otherwise.

Reading between the lines and being clear about something might be clear to
you and Theresa May, but is NOT a good way to understand the subject of a
thread.
Offcourse, copying Mohammed grafitti might 'cause a problem', as might
copying your old teachers stereotype gestures. So might a flat tire. But
extending a thread's subject to encompass your personal 'between the lines'
understanding, while permissible, would imo not be advisable here.

Sorry, my attempt to be civil has ended. I never thought I'd be adding a
kill rule in _this_ newsgroup!


LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way forward.
--
Fair petitions? See 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions @jpeg_G6;
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770

[Evertjan.]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way
forward. --
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770

Far more sensible, 2,577,556 and fastly growing:

<https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584>

"remain" just being an extention with a minimum time-span.

Damn this Maidenhead MP, her head does not look that maiden.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Evertjan.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way
forward. --
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770

<https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584>

I think that makes my point about petitions being unfair very well:
there's nowhere for those who _don't_ want to revoke to sign. Even if
you're in favour of revoking, you must admit that that is not a fair
state of affairs - unless you're keen to win by something unfair.

Post by Evertjan.
"remain" just being an extention with a minimum time-span.

Eh?

Post by Evertjan.
Damn this Maidenhead MP, her head does not look that maiden.

Personal attacks - whether of May, Corbyn, or anyone else - have been
one of the less enervating aspects of this business )-:.

JPG
---


LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way we can
even _draft_ any "new deal" (assuming MV3 fails as expected).
--
Those who _don't_ favour the "revoke" petition have nowhere to express that.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 233soft.uk #fairpetitions

[Graeme Wall]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Evertjan.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way
forward. --
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770

<https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584>

there's nowhere for those who _don't_ want to revoke to sign. Even if
you're in favour of revoking, you must admit that that is not a fair
state of affairs - unless you're keen to win by something unfair.

There is another petition demanding an immediate no-deal exit running so
compare the two.

For comparison currently the remain vote is edging 2 million, the leave
vote around 360,000. The latter has been running much longer.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Evertjan.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770

<https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584>

there's nowhere for those who _don't_ want to revoke to sign. Even if
you're in favour of revoking, you must admit that that is not a fair
state of affairs - unless you're keen to win by something unfair.

There is another petition demanding an immediate no-deal exit running

That's much more specific than the 3million one (immediate, and
no-deal).

Post by Graeme Wall
so compare the two.
For comparison currently the remain vote is edging 2 million, the leave
vote around 360,000. The latter has been running much longer.

It's more restrictive than the remain one; I wouldn't necessary want to
be immediate, or no-deal. However, I'd like to look at it; can you help
me find it? I searched for "no-deal" and "immediate", and couldn't find
it. (I found an interesting "66%" STV one, but that's got so few votes
it has no chance.)

JPG
---


LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way we can
even _draft_ any "new deal" (assuming MV3 fails as expected).
--
Those who _don't_ favour the "revoke" petition have nowhere to express that.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 233soft.uk #fairpetitions

[Evertjan.]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall
There is another petition demanding an immediate no-deal exit running

That's much more specific than the 3million one (immediate, and
no-deal).

Post by Graeme Wall
so compare the two.
For comparison currently the remain vote is edging 2 million, the leave
vote around 360,000. The latter has been running much longer.

It's more restrictive than the remain one; I wouldn't necessary want to
be immediate, or no-deal. However, I'd like to look at it; can you help
me find it? I searched for "no-deal" and "immediate", and couldn't find
it. (I found an interesting "66%" STV one, but that's got so few votes
it has no chance.)

Well, it must be said that "no-deal" is a definite action,
while "remain" might be just a long-term extention,
and one that does not need te approval of the 27.

[Charles Ellson]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:01:04 +0100, "Evertjan."

Post by Evertjan.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall
There is another petition demanding an immediate no-deal exit running

That's much more specific than the 3million one (immediate, and
no-deal).

Post by Graeme Wall
so compare the two.
For comparison currently the remain vote is edging 2 million, the leave
vote around 360,000. The latter has been running much longer.

It's more restrictive than the remain one; I wouldn't necessary want to
be immediate, or no-deal. However, I'd like to look at it; can you help
me find it? I searched for "no-deal" and "immediate", and couldn't find
it. (I found an interesting "66%" STV one, but that's got so few votes
it has no chance.)

Well, it must be said that "no-deal" is a definite action,
while "remain" might be just a long-term extention,
and one that does not need te approval of the 27.

"Remain" as usually encountered is implicitly to allow the status quo
until further notice and no hint of changing it in the foreseeable
future.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Evertjan.
Well, it must be said that "no-deal" is a definite action,
while "remain" might be just a long-term extention,
and one that does not need te approval of the 27.

"Remain" as usually encountered is implicitly to allow the status quo
until further notice and no hint of changing it in the foreseeable
future.

NO, "remain" is the delivering of the revoking statement to the EU.

I don't care for usual or unusual encounters of any kind here.

But methinks "no hint of changing it in the foreseeable future"
is a welcome change of affairs for now.

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:59:57 +0100, "Evertjan."

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Evertjan.
Well, it must be said that "no-deal" is a definite action,
while "remain" might be just a long-term extention,
and one that does not need te approval of the 27.

"Remain" as usually encountered is implicitly to allow the status quo
until further notice and no hint of changing it in the foreseeable
future.

NO, "remain" is the delivering of the revoking statement to the EU.

Thus maintaining the status quo !
The UK has not yet left the EU despite what many seem to think.

Post by Evertjan.
I don't care for usual or unusual encounters of any kind here.
But methinks "no hint of changing it in the foreseeable future"
is a welcome change of affairs for now.

We are maybe in some form of violent agreement.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Charles Ellson
Thus maintaining the status quo !
The UK has not yet left the EU despite what many seem to think.

Post by Evertjan.
I don't care for usual or unusual encounters of any kind here.
But methinks "no hint of changing it in the foreseeable future"
is a welcome change of affairs for now.

We are maybe in some form of violent agreement.

;-)

[MB]

Post by Graeme Wall
There is another petition demanding an immediate no-deal exit running so
compare the two.
For comparison currently the remain vote is edging 2 million, the leave
vote around 360,000.  The latter has been running much longer.

You only have to look at the origin of the names on the Remoaner's
petition to realise that they are not genuine. Perhaps will realise
when it reaches 100 million if they forget to turn the Bots off!

[Graeme Wall]

Post by MB

Post by Graeme Wall
There is another petition demanding an immediate no-deal exit running
so compare the two.
For comparison currently the remain vote is edging 2 million, the
leave vote around 360,000.  The latter has been running much longer.

You only have to look at the origin of the names on the Remoaner's
petition to realise that they are not genuine.  Perhaps will realise
when it reaches 100 million if they forget to turn the Bots off!

Now you really are spouting racist crap.

[MB]

Post by Graeme Wall
Now you really are spouting racist crap.

How is it "racist" to criticise attempted manipulation of a vote or
petition? I seem to remember that the first line on the UK Parliament
petition website asks if you are a UK citizen and resident, is that
"racist".

I suppose it is also "racist" to complain about the Russians interfering
in elections, they could well be involved in the fake signatures on this
petition.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by MB

Post by Graeme Wall
Now you really are spouting racist crap.

How is it "racist" to criticise attempted manipulation of a vote or
petition?  I seem to remember that the first line on the UK Parliament
petition website asks if you are a UK citizen and resident, is that
"racist".

You were making allegations about the the people who set up the
petition. You didn't even notice that it was only one person.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by MB

Post by Graeme Wall
Now you really are spouting racist crap.

How is it "racist" to criticise attempted manipulation of a vote or
petition?  I seem to remember that the first line on the UK Parliament
petition website asks if you are a UK citizen and resident, is that
"racist".

You were making allegations about the the people who set up the
petition. You didn't even notice that it was only one person.

(I haven't seen the alleged racist comments so can't comment, but:)
It's _always_ one person; that's how the e-petition website works. You
need to get a small number to support you before they'll publish it, but
a petition (on the government site, anyway) is always instigated by one
person.

This particular petition, like all petitions, is lessened in impact by
the fact that it only collects signatures on one side; I've been waiting
for someone to start a counter-petition, and been surprised they
haven't. Part of the reason _may_ be that the petitions committee are
blocking any such attempt, on the (spurious IMO) grounds that "it is not
clear what result you wish this petition to achieve".

JPG
---


Those who _don't_ favour the "revoke" petition have nowhere to express that.
See https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 255soft.uk #fairpetitions

[MB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
This particular petition, like all petitions, is lessened in impact by
the fact that it only collects signatures on one side; I've been waiting
for someone to start a counter-petition, and been surprised they
haven't. Part of the reason _may_ be that the petitions committee are
blocking any such attempt, on the (spurious IMO) grounds that "it is not
clear what result you wish this petition to achieve".

Probably people realise that they can be so easily manipulated and most
people do not pay a lot of attention to them even if some in the media
believe them.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall
Now you really are spouting racist crap.

 How is it "racist" to criticise attempted manipulation of a vote or
petition?  I seem to remember that the first line on the UK
Parliament petition website asks if you are a UK citizen and
resident, is that "racist".

You were making allegations about the the people who set up the
petition. You didn't even notice that it was only one person.

(I haven't seen the alleged racist comments so can't comment, but:)
It's _always_ one person; that's how the e-petition website works. You
need to get a small number to support you before they'll publish it, but
a petition (on the government site, anyway) is always instigated by one
person.
This particular petition, like all petitions, is lessened in impact by
the fact that it only collects signatures on one side; I've been waiting
for someone to start a counter-petition, and been surprised they
haven't. Part of the reason _may_ be that the petitions committee are
blocking any such attempt, on the (spurious IMO) grounds that "it is not
clear what result you wish this petition to achieve".

As I said there already is one.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
This particular petition, like all petitions, is lessened in impact
by the fact that it only collects signatures on one side; I've been
waiting for someone to start a counter-petition, and been surprised
they haven't. Part of the reason _may_ be that the petitions
committee are blocking any such attempt, on the (spurious IMO)
grounds that "it is not clear what result you wish this petition to achieve".

As I said there already is one.

As _I_ said, (a) it's more specific [it asks for a no-deal exit, and
without delay], and (b) I couldn't find it anyway.

JPG
---


LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way we can
even _draft_ any "new deal" (assuming MV3 fails as expected).
--
Those who _don't_ favour the "revoke" petition have nowhere to express that.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 255soft.uk #fairpetitions

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:09:24 +0000, Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall
Now you really are spouting racist crap.

 How is it "racist" to criticise attempted manipulation of a vote or
petition?  I seem to remember that the first line on the UK
Parliament petition website asks if you are a UK citizen and
resident, is that "racist".

You were making allegations about the the people who set up the
petition. You didn't even notice that it was only one person.

(I haven't seen the alleged racist comments so can't comment, but:)
It's _always_ one person; that's how the e-petition website works. You
need to get a small number to support you before they'll publish it, but
a petition (on the government site, anyway) is always instigated by one
person.
This particular petition, like all petitions, is lessened in impact by
the fact that it only collects signatures on one side; I've been waiting
for someone to start a counter-petition, and been surprised they
haven't. Part of the reason _may_ be that the petitions committee are
blocking any such attempt, on the (spurious IMO) grounds that "it is not
clear what result you wish this petition to achieve".

As I said there already is one.

This one ?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963
"Leave the EU without a deal in March 2019"
which still leaves a spectrum of opinion between it and the one under
discussion but adding all the variations to be found produces a
relatively insignificant counter-figure to the current near 4.5M.

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 09:48:35 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by MB

Post by Graeme Wall
Now you really are spouting racist crap.

How is it "racist" to criticise attempted manipulation of a vote or
petition?  I seem to remember that the first line on the UK Parliament
petition website asks if you are a UK citizen and resident, is that
"racist".

You were making allegations about the the people who set up the
petition. You didn't even notice that it was only one person.

(I haven't seen the alleged racist comments so can't comment, but:)
It's _always_ one person; that's how the e-petition website works. You
need to get a small number to support you before they'll publish it, but
a petition (on the government site, anyway) is always instigated by one
person.
This particular petition, like all petitions, is lessened in impact by
the fact that it only collects signatures on one side; I've been waiting
for someone to start a counter-petition, and been surprised they
haven't. Part of the reason _may_ be that the petitions committee are
blocking any such attempt, on the (spurious IMO) grounds that "it is not
clear what result you wish this petition to achieve".

There are more than two sides involved in the Brexit farce. Those who
wish to oppose this petition have differing motives for doing so and
could even include some versions of those wishing to remain but who do
not want it under the current arrangements. It cannot be insignificant
that this petition has around 10 times the signatories that the "Leave
the EU without a deal in March 2019" has and that most other relevant
petitions on the waiting list call for a second vote about leaving the
EU.

[MB]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by MB

Post by Graeme Wall
Now you really are spouting racist crap.

How is it "racist" to criticise attempted manipulation of a vote or
petition?  I seem to remember that the first line on the UK Parliament
petition website asks if you are a UK citizen and resident, is that
"racist".

You were making allegations about the the people who set up the
petition. You didn't even notice that it was only one person.

Isn't she the person who was asking where she could get a gun to kill
Theresa May?

[MB]

Post by Evertjan.
<https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584>
"remain" just being an extention with a minimum time-span.
Damn this Maidenhead MP, her head does not look that maiden.

It is rumoured that one or two of the signatures are from real human
beings resident in the UK!

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Although the OP used the word copyright in the subject, it was clear to
me that what is of concern to him is whether he can use information from
a newspaper;

That's correct, yes.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think the OP and the scanning organisation are both in England; the
newspaper, I judge from the subject, definitely is.

I, the newspaper in question, its editor and I suspect the vast majority
of its contributors are all in England. The scanning organisation is
actually in Wales, but England and Wales are generally treated as a
single legal jurisdiction.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The OP hasn't told us where he's planning to use the material. (There
was/is no need to reveal this.)

Mostly because I'm not yet sure. The newspaper in question contains
essentially no genealogical content, though may be of interest to local
historians. My interest in it is because my great great grandfather was
a frequent contributor towards the end of his life.

Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Although the OP used the word copyright in the subject, it was clear to
me that what is of concern to him is whether he can use information from
a newspaper;

That's correct, yes.

I thought that was the case.
[]

Post by Richard Smith
I, the newspaper in question, its editor and I suspect the vast
majority of its contributors are all in England. The scanning
organisation is actually in Wales, but England and Wales are generally
treated as a single legal jurisdiction.

Indeed.

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The OP hasn't told us where he's planning to use the material. (There
was/is no need to reveal this.)

Mostly because I'm not yet sure. The newspaper in question contains
essentially no genealogical content, though may be of interest to local
historians. My interest in it is because my great great grandfather
was a frequent contributor towards the end of his life.

Right. If the contributor whose material you are interested in - and
possibly republishing - is DEFINITELY your GGGF, then I think you are
OK: if the copyright vested in the newspaper, that's expired; if your
GGGF retained it, then you presumably know to whom he willed any rights
in it - and if it was towards the end of his life, then I presume it's
more than 70 years since he died, so has still expired.

It's only of concern if you want to use material that was contributed by
someone else, who died less than 70 years ago. How long ago was
publication? I think you've mentioned "over 100 years"; if significantly
more, then probably everyone's long enough dead.

IANAL though!

Post by Richard Smith
Richard

John
----


LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way we can even
_draft_ any "new deal" (assuming MV3 fails as expected).
--
Those who _don't_ favout the "revoke" petition have nowhere to express that.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Right. If the contributor whose material you are interested in - and
possibly republishing - is DEFINITELY your GGGF, then I think you are
OK: if the copyright vested in the newspaper, that's expired; if your
GGGF retained it, then you presumably know to whom he willed any rights
in it - and if it was towards the end of his life, then I presume it's
more than 70 years since he died, so has still expired.

The only way the newspaper contributor might not be my great great
grandfather is if there was a non-paternity event, as the euphemism
goes, somewhere between him and me. There's no possibility that this is
a case of mistaken identity.

The potential complication is that my great great grandfather's
contributions do not really make sense in isolation. A "fair use"
extract would be sufficient to put them in make sense, but a more
comprehensive collection might be of more interest. While my great
great grandfather was old when he made his contributions, I get the
impression most of the contributors were young men, and it would be
astonishing if they were all dead 70 years ago. But the chance of any
of their heirs caring enough to do anything seems very small.

Anyway, I think I have enough information on the legal side. I now need
to decide what, if anything, I want to do with the information I've
gathered. Thanks for your help.

Richard

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:26:23 +0100, "Evertjan."

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Richard Smith
Is anyone able to tell me when old English newspapers come out of
copyright in the UK?  The normal rule is 70 years from the death of
the author, but the concept of an author seems fairly ill-defined
for a newspaper.

I think that in the case of a publication with no acknowledged
author, such as a newspaper article, it is 70 years from the date of
publication.

Thanks.  That would make sense.
Richard

But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by a
commercial archiving company; the _content_ may be out of copyright, as
may the physical layout, but if the only access you have is to a scan
made by someone, I think it is likely that they may have some claim
from the date they scanned it. You can almost certainly transcribe from
their scan, but not reproduce their scan itself. IANAL though.

Good point.

I doubt that.
Scanning is not a creative action,
so only the possible original copyright persists.
<https://www.quora.com/Can-copyright-be-claimed-on-a-scanned-image>

US law doesn't apply to us

yet.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Evertjan.
Scanning is not a creative action,
so only the possible original copyright persists.
<https://www.quora.com/Can-copyright-be-claimed-on-a-scanned-image>

US law doesn't apply to us

This is not about that,
but it shows logical interpretation of the Berner Convention.

Yes, indeed, logic doen't seem to prevail in British thinking today.

[Charles Ellson]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:49:32 +0100, "Evertjan."

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Evertjan.
Scanning is not a creative action,
so only the possible original copyright persists.
<https://www.quora.com/Can-copyright-be-claimed-on-a-scanned-image>

US law doesn't apply to us

This is not about that,
but it shows logical interpretation of the Berner

Berne

Post by Evertjan.
Convention.

The Berne Convention does not define copyright law within the
jurisdiction of an individual signatory beyond the matter of a foreign
author having equal rights to a native.

Post by Evertjan.
Yes, indeed, logic doen't seem to prevail in British thinking today.

British thinking is irrelevant; it is the law of the relevant
jurisdiction that matters.

[MB]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Richard Smith
Is anyone able to tell me when old English newspapers come out of
copyright in the UK?  The normal rule is 70 years from the death of the
author, but the concept of an author seems fairly ill-defined for a
newspaper.

I think that in the case of a publication with no acknowledged author,
such as a newspaper article, it is 70 years from the date of publication.

Thanks.  That would make sense.
Richard

But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by
a commercial archiving company; the _content_ may be out of copyright,
as may the physical layout, but if the only access you have is to a
scan made by someone, I think it is likely that they may have some
claim from the date they scanned it. You can almost certainly
transcribe from their scan, but not reproduce their scan itself. IANAL
though.

Good point.

Also the picture may have its own copyright limitations. A local museum
has been given copies of some old photographs of great interest. They
were taken in the late 1890s, they are trying to prove who took the
pictures (they are fairly sure they know who he was) because copyright
will stay with his estate until 70 years after his death so still quite
a number of years to run. Someone will have taken the picture in the
newspaper so presumably the same applies.

As written if it is a scan of the newspaper, as on the BNA, then the
scan will be copyright from when published.

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/content/Complaints

I asked them some time ago about transcriptions, it seems to be OK to
use them particularly as I will normally spend quite a bit of time
removing many of the OCR errors which means the copy on their website
ends up more accurate.

[Evertjan.]

Post by MB

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Richard Smith
Is anyone able to tell me when old English newspapers come out of
copyright in the UK?  The normal rule is 70 years from the death of
the
author, but the concept of an author seems fairly ill-defined for a
newspaper.

I think that in the case of a publication with no acknowledged author,
such as a newspaper article, it is 70 years from the date of publication.

Thanks.  That would make sense.
Richard

But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by
a commercial archiving company; the _content_ may be out of copyright,
as may the physical layout, but if the only access you have is to a
scan made by someone, I think it is likely that they may have some
claim from the date they scanned it. You can almost certainly
transcribe from their scan, but not reproduce their scan itself. IANAL
though.

Good point.

Also the picture may have its own copyright limitations. A local museum
has been given copies of some old photographs of great interest. They
were taken in the late 1890s, they are trying to prove who took the
pictures (they are fairly sure they know who he was) because copyright
will stay with his estate until 70 years after his death so still quite
a number of years to run. Someone will have taken the picture in the
newspaper so presumably the same applies.
As written if it is a scan of the newspaper, as on the BNA, then the
scan will be copyright from when published.
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/content/Complaints
I asked them some time ago about transcriptions, it seems to be OK to
use them particularly as I will normally spend quite a bit of time
removing many of the OCR errors which means the copy on their website
ends up more accurate.

Well, they would say that, but they are WRONG, deadly WRONG.

A scan is just a mechanical process, programmatic OCR-ing is also not a work
of human art.

Having a programme you wrote do/make something does not make the result
copyrightable, unless you envisioned the result as an artfull product by
itself.

Data, read information, is also not copyrightable, so you have no copyright
on the birthday of your grandfather.

You cannot succesfully claim copyright on your trousers just because you
washed them, which changed or faded the colour, unless you can show you had
a hand and a mind in the resulting artistic uniqueness.

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by a
commercial archiving company; the _content_ may be out of copyright, as
may the physical layout, but if the only access you have is to a scan
made by someone, I think it is likely that they may have some claim from
the date they scanned it. You can almost certainly transcribe from their
scan, but not reproduce their scan itself.

It is true that the party who scanned the images claims rights, but I
don't think it is copyright: I think it's normally a licensing issue.
In order to access the scans, you agree to be bound by their terms and
conditions, and it is common for these to impose additional restrictions
on what you can do. There are few relatively limits on what
restrictions the terms can impose. These may say you cannot copy the
images, or that you can only do so for personal use; they may also say
you cannot transcribe the images.

But in my case, that's not relevant. Having contacted the organisation
who published the scans, they were made in-house and the organisation
does not want to claim any rights to the scans or impose any
restrictions or their use. However they said they were unable to advise
on the copyright status of the originals: they were printed about 100
years ago, but some of the identified contributors died less than 70
years ago. From what the British Newspaper Archive says, it sounds like
those passages may well still be copyright, but, it's almost certainly
safe it ignore it.

Thanks

Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by a

[]

Post by Richard Smith
It is true that the party who scanned the images claims rights, but I
don't think it is copyright: I think it's normally a licensing issue.

Yes, I've said in a later post that copyright may not be the relevant
rights legislation, but for the ordinary Joe the effect is similar.

Post by Richard Smith
In order to access the scans, you agree to be bound by their terms and
conditions, and it is common for these to impose additional
restrictions on what you can do. There are few relatively limits on
what restrictions the terms can impose. These may say you cannot copy
the images, or that you can only do so for personal use; they may also

Ancestry and FindMyPast certainly impose such conditions; I have seen
(but cannot now cite) anecdotal evidence that FMP at least are quite hot
on pursuing infringements.

Post by Richard Smith
say you cannot transcribe the images.

I'm not sure they can do that! The _information_ in the text is not
copyright to the scanning entity. (IANAL, so that may be wrong.)

Post by Richard Smith
But in my case, that's not relevant. Having contacted the organisation
who published the scans, they were made in-house and the organisation
does not want to claim any rights to the scans or impose any
restrictions or their use. However they said they were unable to
advise on the copyright status of the originals: they were printed

They are wise to not give any such advice.

Post by Richard Smith
about 100 years ago, but some of the identified contributors died less
than 70 years ago. From what the British Newspaper Archive says, it
sounds like those passages may well still be copyright, but, it's
almost certainly safe it ignore it.

It's been common - though I don't know how universal - for some decades
for a publication to make it a condition of acceptance of material, that
copyright (and/or often other rights) is surrendered to the publisher;
especially in the case of employment (or paid freelance), but often even
for voluntary contribution. However, this may have been less the case
100 years ago. If the rights _were_ surrendered to the publisher, then
presumably (IANAL!) you're OK, but I guess it'd be near-impossible to
find out.

Do you know the identity of the contributors in question? (If not, and
it isn't shown in the extracts involved, or nearby, then anyone wanting
to claim against you would have some difficulty proving [a] that they
did write it [b] there was no handover-rights arrangement in place when
they did; but they might be able to, so on your head be it.)

Post by Richard Smith
Thanks
Richard

John
----


LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way forward.
--
Fair petitions? See 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions @jpeg_G6;
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770

[MB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Ancestry and FindMyPast certainly impose such conditions; I have seen
(but cannot now cite) anecdotal evidence that FMP at least are quite hot
on pursuing infringements.

Ancestry always seem to have been quite relaxed about it, I think they
are big enough to not be too bothered whereas FMP is quite small in
comparison so perhaps suffer from the equivalent of Little Person
Syndrome. :-)

[Charles Ellson]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:25:05 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
But beware of pictorial representations, if the scan has been made by a

[]

Post by Richard Smith
It is true that the party who scanned the images claims rights, but I
don't think it is copyright: I think it's normally a licensing issue.

Yes, I've said in a later post that copyright may not be the relevant
rights legislation, but for the ordinary Joe the effect is similar.

Post by Richard Smith
In order to access the scans, you agree to be bound by their terms and
conditions, and it is common for these to impose additional
restrictions on what you can do. There are few relatively limits on
what restrictions the terms can impose. These may say you cannot copy
the images, or that you can only do so for personal use; they may also

Ancestry and FindMyPast certainly impose such conditions; I have seen
(but cannot now cite) anecdotal evidence that FMP at least are quite hot
on pursuing infringements.

Post by Richard Smith
say you cannot transcribe the images.

I'm not sure they can do that! The _information_ in the text is not
copyright to the scanning entity. (IANAL, so that may be wrong.)

Some copyright statements can be too simple and have the effect of a
false claim to copyright on things to which they have no rights. WRT
transcribing, it should in most cases be fairly easy to distinguish
e.g. record content (which might or might not be copyright) from
something originated by a contributor's relative which could easily
still be in copyright for anything created in the last century and a
half.
<snip>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:25:05 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

[]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
say you cannot transcribe the images.

I'm not sure they can do that! The _information_ in the text is not
copyright to the scanning entity. (IANAL, so that may be wrong.)

Some copyright statements can be too simple and have the effect of a
false claim to copyright on things to which they have no rights. WRT
transcribing, it should in most cases be fairly easy to distinguish
e.g. record content (which might or might not be copyright) from
something originated by a contributor's relative which could easily
still be in copyright for anything created in the last century and a
half.
<snip>

Sorry, I meant I don't think they can prevent you transcribing, even if
from their scan, the _text_ from a document that is itself out of
copyright, as long as you don't (a) use _their_ *image* (b) use _their_
transcription, if their transcription involved in any way provable
effort (e. g. if the original was very hard to read for whatever
reason). But IANAL ...

JPG
---


LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way forward.
--
Fair petitions? See 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions @jpeg_G6;
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770

[Charles Ellson]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 00:08:21 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:25:05 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

[]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
say you cannot transcribe the images.

I'm not sure they can do that! The _information_ in the text is not
copyright to the scanning entity. (IANAL, so that may be wrong.)

Some copyright statements can be too simple and have the effect of a
false claim to copyright on things to which they have no rights. WRT
transcribing, it should in most cases be fairly easy to distinguish
e.g. record content (which might or might not be copyright) from
something originated by a contributor's relative which could easily
still be in copyright for anything created in the last century and a
half.
<snip>

Sorry, I meant I don't think they can prevent you transcribing, even if
from their scan, the _text_ from a document that is itself out of
copyright, as long as you don't (a) use _their_ *image* (b) use _their_
transcription, if their transcription involved in any way provable
effort (e. g. if the original was very hard to read for whatever
reason). But IANAL ...

IMU they can prevent you transcribing but not due to copyright
considerations rather than contractual. As with e.g. banning people
with brown shoes from entering your premises, there might not be any
legal sanction available other than not allowing access.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Charles Ellson
IMU they can prevent you transcribing but not due to copyright
considerations rather than contractual. As with e.g. banning people
with brown shoes from entering your premises, there might not be any
legal sanction available other than not allowing access.

Right.

So if a scan is published or otherwise legally accessable,
the Berner Convention applies internationally [meaning: in most countries],
so only "creative" changes are copyrightable.

Copyright does not have to be stated, it is implicit.

While copyright has to be claimed to be exercisable, that does not mean that
claim to be exercisable outside the constraints of the law.

Methinks, in the realm of genealogy, most claims are just false and
misleading.

[Charles Ellson]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:01:42 +0100, "Evertjan."

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Charles Ellson
IMU they can prevent you transcribing but not due to copyright
considerations rather than contractual. As with e.g. banning people
with brown shoes from entering your premises, there might not be any
legal sanction available other than not allowing access.

Right.
So if a scan is published or otherwise legally accessable,
the Berner Convention applies internationally [meaning: in most countries],
so only "creative" changes are copyrightable.

It applies as far as the Convention permits, i.e. the author is
entitled to the same rights in another Convention country as applies
to that countries citizens. Whether or not any new creation endows
rights to the author of that creation depends on that country's laws
not on the Convention.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Copyright does not have to be stated, it is implicit.
While copyright has to be claimed to be exercisable, that does not mean that
claim to be exercisable outside the constraints of the law.
Methinks, in the realm of genealogy, most claims are just false and
misleading.

Quite possible when dealing with mere facts but a novel presentation
of those facts is a different matter.

[MB]

Post by Charles Ellson
IMU they can prevent you transcribing but not due to copyright
considerations rather than contractual. As with e.g. banning people
with brown shoes from entering your premises, there might not be any
legal sanction available other than not allowing access.

When people use BNA transcriptions, they normally go through the
transcription and correct errors (or at least most of them). This
improves the quality of the BNA's transcription and also their search
system which relies on the transcription.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by MB

Post by Charles Ellson
IMU they can prevent you transcribing but not due to copyright
considerations rather than contractual. As with e.g. banning people
with brown shoes from entering your premises, there might not be any
legal sanction available other than not allowing access.

When people use BNA transcriptions, they normally go through the
transcription and correct errors (or at least most of them). This
improves the quality of the BNA's transcription and also their search
system which relies on the transcription.

If the OCR quality has been comparable to the Australian version then
there is a fairly clear amount of new creation involved in those
online corrected transcriptions.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by MB

Post by Charles Ellson
IMU they can prevent you transcribing but not due to copyright
considerations rather than contractual. As with e.g. banning people
with brown shoes from entering your premises, there might not be any
legal sanction available other than not allowing access.

When people use BNA transcriptions, they normally go through the
transcription and correct errors (or at least most of them). This
improves the quality of the BNA's transcription and also their search
system which relies on the transcription.

If the OCR quality has been comparable to the Australian version then
there is a fairly clear amount of new creation involved in those
online corrected transcriptions.

However, a better machine OCR PROGRAMME is protected,
the output of such a programme is just data, and is NOT a new creative act,
even though such programme is adapted to the quirks of an ancient document.

You can learn your ape or dog to paint,
but the resulting paintings are not copyrightable.

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:54:45 +0100, "Evertjan."

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by MB

Post by Charles Ellson
IMU they can prevent you transcribing but not due to copyright
considerations rather than contractual. As with e.g. banning people
with brown shoes from entering your premises, there might not be any
legal sanction available other than not allowing access.

When people use BNA transcriptions, they normally go through the
transcription and correct errors (or at least most of them). This
improves the quality of the BNA's transcription and also their search
system which relies on the transcription.

If the OCR quality has been comparable to the Australian version then
there is a fairly clear amount of new creation involved in those
online corrected transcriptions.

However, a better machine OCR PROGRAMME is protected,
the output of such a programme is just data, and is NOT a new creative act,

It quite clearly is. "Creation" is not just the result of an author's
imagination, it involves producing something significantly different
that wasn't there before. A transcript of information in an image is
self-evidently a new and different work from the image. The words will
not be a new creation in an accurate transcription of an image of a
newspaper article but there is new creation of the manner in which the
words are presented.

Post by Evertjan.
even though such programme is adapted to the quirks of an ancient document.
You can learn your ape or dog to paint,
but the resulting paintings are not copyrightable.

They are as the human associated with the creature has exerted control
over the process and thus has rights over the creation. Your analogy
would disqualify any printed material from enjoying copyright as the
printing machine would have no conscious capability of creation unlike
what little a non-human animal might have.