Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: February ::
Intellectual Property
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0286  Thursday, 10 February 2000.

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 09 Feb 2000 18:29:56 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0275 Re: New Globe

[2]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 08:55:40 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 11.0275 Re: New Glo


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 09 Feb 2000 18:29:56 -0500
Subject: 11.0275 Re: New Globe
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0275 Re: New Globe

If John Briggs, Tom Reedy or anyone else is genuinely interested in
copyright or trademark issues, I would be happy to discuss it with them
in the copyright law list (
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 ).  It is off point
here.

And, no, intellectual property is no more intellectual theft than real
property is real theft or personal property is personal theft.  If you
compel an author, for example, to give gratis the fruits of his labor
and creativity to anyone who wants to use it, why should you be paid for
whatever it is you do?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 10 Feb 2000 08:55:40 -0000
Subject: 11.0275 Re: New Globe
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.0275 Re: New Globe

There are several points here so I shall start at the beginning:

There are broadly four types of intellectual property, viz.

a) copyright
b) patents
c) trademarks
d) trade secrets or know-how

The latest act of parliament is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988.  The term of copyright has recently been extended (to harmonise in
Europe) to life plus 70 years.  Copyright in unpublished manuscripts is
a little complex (under certain circumstances a copyright may be
established by the first person to publish them).  Crown Copyright is
now a different period: 125 years sticks in my mind for some reason.

Constitutional digression: the US constitution is simply a codification
of the British constitution of the C18, with the king replaced by an
elected president, and the House of Lords by an elected senate.  The
Executive is responsible to the President, and the prerogatives of the
crown were abolished.  By the mid-C19 the (unwritten) British
constitution had evolved, and the executive had come under the control
of the legislature, with the government being chosen by the majority
party in the House of Commons.  Having a democratic mandate, the House
of Commons acquired ascendancy over both the crown and the (unelected)
House of Lords.  The ancient prerogatives of the crown were not
abolished, but the exercise of them was transferred with the executive
to the elected government.  Thus the British Government jealously guards
crown copyright in public (i.e. central government) documents.  Under
the influence of liberal capitalism, as practised in e.g. the USA, this
is seen as having a monetary value...

The Diocese of Worcester is not a government agency.  Church and State
are not exactly separate, but they are, well, separate!  (I am not sure
if the Diocese has a corporate existence separate from that of the
Bishop: he may be a corporation sole, if so, he is in much the same
position as the crown).  The records of the Diocese have presumably been
deposited in the local Record Office, which is yes, a government agency,
but of local (county or district) government not central government, but
the ownership (and any copyright) would remain with the Diocese.

Now, the owner of unpublished records may or may not own the copyright
in them, but they would own the copyright in any photograph they make of
them (the copyright position of photographers was strengthened by the
1988 Act).  Fees demanded for reproduction are either on the basis of
this copyright, or on the basis of a contract established by the sale of
the photograph or as a condition of access to the original document, or
both!

The only way around this is to reproduce a previously-published
photograph from a book which is itself out of copyright.  (Providing the
copyright in the photograph itself has lapsed, but that is likely).

I am not a lawyer, so I am happy to offer this legal advice gratis.  The
fees charged by lawyers may show a greater stability over time than that
of other professions...

John Briggs
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.