Is the content of AW's Lakeland Fells guidebooks subject to copyright?
I've checked through my set and can't find any copyright notices, restrictions or anything like that, not even ISBNs. I don't know if it makes any difference, but I'm using a set printed and bought in the 80s, published by and bought from Westmorland Gazette, Kendal.
The reason for asking? I'm considering scanning some pics and maps to add to my Memory-Map routes, and possibly to my blog and/or my embryonic website.
Hmmm... I just pulled out a Wainwright at random and you're dead right... no copyright notice inside.
It makes no difference, the legal maxim is thus: Copyright subsists in a work the moment it is committed to a tangible form. There's no legal requirement to register it. It exists from the moment the work is created. In the case of books, it generally runs for 50 years after the creation of the work, but can be renewed after that period.
You can't copyright an idea. If you hum a tune, or compose a poem in your head, you can't claim copyright in it. Once it's on paper, or recorded, or whatever, then copyright automatically exists in the work. Wainwright's guides were penned over a period of years, and you wouldn't be able to copy them without permission. Then again, many publishers are quite open to a polite request to copy small parts of books and even whole pictures, so long as they're not for sale or commercial use, and so long as you acknowledge the source and mention that they are being re-used with permission.
In the case of the Wainwright guides, you need to ask Frances Lincoln publishers for permission, as Westmorland Gazette no longer have any interest in those guides, regardless of whether or not their name appears in the book. Hope this helps.
I have a 50th Anniversary Edition set from Frances Lincoln (2005) and they say "Copyright - The Estate of A.Wainwright"
They mention that you need permission in writing from either the publisher or a license permitting restricted copying: "In the United Kingdom such licenses are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE"
Getting permission for re-use via the Copyright Licensing Agency would be a long and formal way to go about things. In theory, the current publisher (Frances Lincoln) could give you permission on the strength of a single phone call or email. Let's be very clear about this, I don't have a clue how Frances Lincoln would react to a request from you, but I imagine that copying a page of text or a picture or two is something they might let you have for nothing. In return they would certainly expect an acknowledgement of the source, which is like a mini-plug for the work. If you can offer to put in a click-though link to the publisher's website, then so much the better. Letting you have a limited re-use would get them what amounts to a free ad, and might result in the sale of a couple of books, so everyone would be happy!
In the past, I've been given permission to reproduce the government maps of an entire country, for free, on the strength of a single phone call!
Paddy, why does the copyright belong to the publisher and not the Wainwright estate? Or does the copyright belong to the Wainwright estate but the publisher can give consent? Or has the publisher gained the copyright in this particular case?
Copyright belongs exclusively to the creator of a work from the moment it is available in a tangible form... ie on paper, on tape, on CD, etc. But copyright is a commodity that can be bought and sold like anything else. Usually, in the case of an author or musician, a publisher is granted a licence to produce copies of the work, and will pay the author a royalty fee in exchange. It all depends on the contract between the author and publisher, but generally speaking, the publisher will be able to sub-licence the work in order to make more money, and the author will be given a slice of any money raised. If an author sells their copyright entirely, then they have no further control over how that work is used. It's rare for an author to relinquish their copyright, but it does happen. I'm not able to check exactly what Wainwright did, but he certainly left the disposal of all his royalties entirely to the discretion of his publisher. The deal may or may not have included the actual copyright, but maybe someone 'in the know' could comment. I know someone who does a lot of work with Frances Lincoln, but he's away at the moment and can't check with him. The fact remains that Frances Lincoln publish Wainwright's guides, and it's almost certain that they can allow (or disallow) partial reproduction. In BGs case, I imagine a polite request would be smiled upon, since it would in effect promote the guidebooks a little.
Paddy, I guessed that you would be the first to reply :-)
Right from the start I had considered contacting Frances Lincoln because, as you say, "The fact remains that Frances Lincoln publish Wainwright's guides...", but then I reconsidered, as Frances Lincoln didn't publish the set that's on my bookcase.
Anyway, I've fired off an e-mail, let's wait and see what comes back.
Just to extend this beyond Wainwright and Paddy's succinct and accurate summary of the facts.
You have to be very careful when reproducing, or even adapting the work of another person. Here are two examples:
1 The Ordnance Survey will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you reproduce any of its maps subject to copyright. It is also a breach of copyright to redraw and simplify an OS map and then publish it. The OS appears to work on the principle, as the AA found to its cost, that every map of the UK is, at the very least, based on OS surveying and will extract a copyright fee. Even Harvey maps, that are based on their own surveys, makes an acknowledgement to the OS for using the National Grid
The OS has a Protection and Enforcement Team that examines guidebooks and maps for breaches of copyright. Many an amateur publisher has been presented with a bill for copyright that has swallowed up the small profit made on sales as the following extract from the OS Copyright Leaflet 3 makes clear: 'Copying our maps or using our data without our permission is illegal and if you do so you will have to pay damages. We work out damages in line with standard royalty charges plus an extra 50%. Our minimum damages will be £100... '
There are exceptions to copyright fees. Magazines and newspapers are allowed to reproduce OS maps without charge subject to certain conditions.
2 Penguin, the erstwhile publisher of Wainwright's guides, was able to extract a fee from another publisher because, Penguin claimed, it resembled the original publication too closely.
Thanks Paddy & Hugh. This is might be getting a bit OT but I find it very interesting (or more interesting than the work I'm supposed to be doing).
"If you hum a tune, or compose a poem in your head, you can't claim copyright in it. Once it's on paper, or recorded, or whatever, then copyright automatically exists in the work.".......Paddy
When the idea is committed to paper is it the idea or the paper which is copyrighted? For instance the OS doesn't own the copyright to the geography of the UK, but it does own the graphical representation it has created.
Does a copyright of an idea on paper automatically mean a copyright exists for all other media?
To add to Hugh's comment re the AA - I believe the OS have "errors" on their maps which help prove breach of copyright.
John - it's the "tangible form" that counts. That can be words on paper, paint on canvas, digits on CDs, etc. If two people on opposite sides of the world wake up one morning with exactly the same brilliant idea, the one who gives it a tangible form is the one who owns the copyright. The other one, I'm afraid, has nothing! If it comes to the crunch and two people seem to have created the same thing, then one of them simply has to prove that they did it before the other one. I've heard of poets who write an original poem, then post a copy back to themselves so that they have an unopened envelope containing the very first copy of that poem, with a Royal Mail datestamp on the envelope as proof, but that seems a bit extreme to me!
The applicable law is the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, but before you reach for a copy, be warned that copyright law is an immensely convoluted thing. The earliest copyright law in the world was handed down by Diarmuid, High King of Ireland in the year 561, but that didn't stop thousands of people being massacred over a simple breach of copyright!
JH: I fear that your question borders on the philosophical and I'm not sure of the answer. It is subject to copyright as soon as a poem is written down but I don't think that the idea itself can be copyrighted. But I imagine that a poet who, without committing it to paper, recited his verse to someone who then wrote it down and claimed it as his own might have a case. There are a number of instances where minor novelists have sued well-known authors when they have felt that their plots had been copied.
Some map publishers incorporate deliberate minor errors into their publications as a protection against infringement of copyright. However, I have had a categorical assurance in writing from the OS that any errors are human and are not deliberately inserted to protect copyright.
BG I was gonna say don't try putting Memory Map OS maps online as they'll skin you for it. They do allow up to 10 free maps from there OS website that you can use or 10 images from memory map however. But if 10 isn't enough they do a cheap license of about £50ish that allows you to put images of there maps on your site, which isn't too bad. Must admit I've considered it a few times but until my site starts making more money then I won't be doing it yet, only just about make the hosting fees back at the moment.
Just to add to the copyright discussion, and addressing Paddy's tangible form comment, it is a bit different for photographs. The moment you press the shutter, right at the moment of capture, the work is copyrighted. Now would you call an arrangement of electrons on a memory card or the sensitised film before it undertakes wet chemistry 'tangible'? The law does.
In most cases the photographer is the copyright holder with a couple of exceptions. Even 'work for hire' agreements aren't enforceable unless they are signed BEFORE the capture of the image since the work is copyrighted at the moment of capture. The law is very clear on this. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-photo/c-photo-ownpost89.htm
Jamie, I wasn't going to put the maps online, just the route files with attached photos/scans/text, so that anybody could grab the route file and open it using their own copy of MM.
Anyway, taking the philosophical issue a bit further, what's the copyright situation here? It's my photo of my book propped up against my laptop which shows the OM logo and header. Surely I have copyright to the photo?
Actually - if you're prepared to wade through labyrinthine copyright legislation, you'll discover that you CAN, in certain instances, photograph copyrighted materials, provided you're doing it for the right reason! In the case of the book propped against your laptop, I think you're on safe ground, but if the picture was clearer and you appended a note saying - "Please feel free to copy and follow this route - enter your credit card details below" - then I think you'd be in trouble.
When a sculptor carves a statue or casts a bronze, they own the copyright in that work. When the sculpture is mounted on a pedestal in the town centre and people take pictures of it, there's nothing the copyright owner can do to stop them. Interestingly, if you take a picture of the sculpture, you actually own the copyright to the photograph, even though you don't own the copyright to the actual sculpture.
If a photographer takes a pic of a building, the copyright of the building lies with the architect or present owner (as appropriate for the type of building) but the copyright of the photo belongs with the photographer. If the photo goes on to be sold for profit, s/he should have a "property release" before any reputable agency will use it. If this isn't done, the architect/owner can then demand a proportion of the profits made from the sale of that image.
It's a minefield. Even a "model release" giving a photographer use of an image doesn't allow him/her to digitally manipulate that image and distort it unless it expressly says so.
When it comes to taking pictures of people on the hills, with a view to commercial re-use, the best thing is just to snap 'candid' shots. The moment you ask someone to stop, turn, or pose, you're already entering into a contract and at that point you should get the 'deal' down on paper in case of legal action later.
I once took a 'candid' shot of a couple walking along a path, and some time later my publisher received a query for further information from a woman who declared, "That's my husband on page XX." I guess that may not have been his wife in the picture. I never heard what happened next!
In theory, though, Paddy, if the person can be positively identified, you should obtain a model release. If I take candids of folk then I make sure that their faces are not clearly seen or else I use folk who I know will sign a form later.
