h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*this has been cross-posted in the fora for the House Rules and for the Zaphodistan Army of Liberation*

*warning: long post with heavy legal stuff ahead *

I would very much like once more to bring up the question of quotes and why they're disallowed under the BBC house rules.

According to the Danish Act on Copyright, act no. 395 of June 14, 199, section 22:

"A person may quote from a work which has been made public in accordance with proper usage and to the extent required for the purpose."

According to the comments to the act:

- There is specific provisions on how much you may quote from different kinds of works (whether it being 1/4 of a newspaper article, 1/20th of a book of 200 pages or half a poem).

- To be a quote (rather than a not-allowed copy), the quote must be a part of a work -- i.e., not just a collection of quotes and nothing else.

- You can quote from a book if you're discussing it (e.g. in a review) as long as the quote is reasonably short and loyal (that is, accurate).

- You must always specify the source of the quote, thereby acknowledging the author

- Printing "All rights reserved" in itself does *not* disallow quotes to be made. However, as this statement must be taken as the copyright owner's wish not to have the work further published, determining "proper usage" of the material should take the reservation into account.

*phew*

In other and shorter words: It is legal, at least according to Danish law, to quote from published articles, books, songs, etc as long as it is in context and the origin of the quote is clearly and correctly stated.

Does British law differ? If not, shouldn't we be allowed to quote?

I'd appreciate it if the answer to this could be qualified rather than just a "yes, ok" or (worse) "no, you can't".

Best regards,

SG V

A good lawyer will neither say yes or no.
A rather close friend of mine is doing her doctor of law in Hungarian/German/English copyright.
Now, from all I gathered the (European) copyrights are much the same as they are all based on the Berne Convention of something like 1900 and such and stuff. But at any case the main problem here is "Which law does apply to a posting of a person in country X to a web server in the UK when the post is read in country Y" AFAIK nobody knows.

But as long as you don't know which law applies, you can't say which has to be obeyed. (I know one or two people who deal with jurisdiction/international private law and Copyright issues in the course of their J.D. but I still ahve no idea how to solve these problems. But, if the copyright laws of all major/relevant states are the same, ther should not be too many difficulties and the Danish law should be like the other ones.
Do you want me to check up on that one?
Tube

Sure, thanks - anything that will help us argue for the lifting of, IMHO, odd bans in the house rules will do nicely

Where does it actually say that quoting is not allowed? The only mention of quoting I found is in the section about swearing, where it says "Some swearing - such as quotes from poems or plays in reviews, for example - may be editorially acceptable, but in everyday communication, it is not.", which suggests that quoting is allowed.

Well, the house rules says "You agree to only post materials to which you have the copyright or other permission to distribute electronically" -- which I would interpret as making quotes impossible.

Also, the topic has been up here and there in various fora with the same general effect.

From the comments I've seen relating to my question, I am saddened to say that it seems currently as if you for instance cannot quote, say a verse of a favourite song to describe how you're feeling (something I often would be tempted to do) -- unless you're prepared to mask it as an article reviewing the song

As stated, this certainly is harsher than Danish law...

Danish copyright law is pretty likely to be different to UK law in some way I would think, but then I'm not a lawyer. I also don't have time to start comparing English Copyright law and Danish, although I guess it would be a pretty interesting if lengthy excercise.

We're currently discussing copyright issues relating to h2g2 with the copyright advisory team (TV comes up against all sorts of copyright issues all the time) and we're writing a new copyright guidance page, which should give everyone a lot more guidance.

When the page is published, I'll drop the URL in here, okay?

I say: The burden of proof is on BBC/H2G2. So they have to show that the stuff you wrote infringes copyright. That's gonna be difficult if you do not provide a source...
Also, AFAIK, the EU directive 2000/31 states that Internect content providers only have to establish a system that removes offensive/copright etc stuff when the provider is informed about such an infringement etc. The Yikes button after *each* posting should be sufficient for that. There is no duty on the provider to check for that itself. What's going on in the BBC's legal department?!

Until a new ruling came in two days ago that changed all that. I guess they're keeping up with the news.

"I say: The burden of proof is on BBC/H2G2. So they have to show that the stuff you wrote infringes copyright. That's gonna be difficult if you do not provide a source..."

Unfortunately for you, that is *not* what the Terms and Conditions of the site say, and you've agreed to them by registering. Specifically:

***

By submitting your contribution to this site, you also:

* Warrant that such contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to the BBC for all the purposes specified above;

* Indemnify the BBC against all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by the BBC as a result of your breach of the above warranty;

etc...

***

So I say the burden of responsibility is on you - so don't post unless you are sure.

I'm putting the finishing touches to a page explaining copyright law and h2g2, and that's the message: if you post stuff which is illegal under UK law, then you are responsible, liable, and breaking our terms and conditions.

Don't want to sound heavy, but that's the story...

Peta and Mark -- thanks for taking the topic seriously. I'll look forward to reading the clarifications.

Two things:

First -- if you want to have an inkling of an idea why people like Ottox and myself rant so much abouth this, please lean back for an hour.... Just kidding. Here's a quote from something as original as a tourist brochure for the Danish city of Køge (honestly, I swear that I have been unable to find any copyright information in it):

"(...)The Danes are also unpretentious. They have a down-to-earth -often humorous - attitude towards life and all forms of man-made authority.

The value of being free and independent plays a serious role in the Danish mentality. There is always space for the individual in democracy and philosphy (...)"

"Gems of Køge Bay", Køge Tourist Office, 2001. Page 2.

Now -- in the H2G2 context this to me rather well defines why we very actively dislikes it when somebody tells us that we cannot quote as per the rules we have learnt or talk to each other in our own language without having our postings delayed for a couple of hours (or worse).

We're plainly annoyed when an authority tells us downright that "it is so!" Blame it on our school system if you must blame it on anything -- we're taught from the age of 6 (or younger) to be critical, don't take anything at face value, absorb and digest things and continue to ask why/how/what else if we cannot see a reason that makes sense.

So that's what we do

And, as you can probably plainly see, we don't feel that the rules here makes enough sense for us to just accept them. And the schisma comes in due to the fact that we (here I'm speaking for myself with a pretty good guess that I'm covering for the others) love H2G2 too much to just turn our backs.

So we ask, we argue, we try to make "the other side" listen to our arguments in the hope - and, given that we're quite stubborn - belief that arguments will be able to change things for the better.

*sits back, empties the last few drops of red wine*

You've been explaining and very loyally defending the house rules ad nauseam over the last few weeks. I suddenly felt an urge to explain where we're coming from - and why. You deserve it .

Now, whether this will make *pardon my french* a rat's a** (see, I even asterisked using a bad word) of difference - well, I don't know.

But I'm a Dane -- so I'll just keep on doing what I can to push things in the direction I believe is rights.

Enough ranting for one day. Everybody who cares, have a on me (pls check the recommended article on my space if you don't have a clue as to what that's all about).

Sorry -- now I don't have a clue as to what the other thing was

Kindest regards,

SG V

"By submitting your contribution to this site, you also: * Warrant that such contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to the BBC for all the purposes specified above;"

Err... Well. You're right now dealing with a J.D. student loaded with a dozen o' cans of beer.... so beerware...
Sorry. I do warrant that it's *not* my original work *but* that I have the right to make it available to the BBC for all the purposes specified above according to the law of England/the UK/the EU.
It's not my work but that's why I did credit it to the person(s) I attributed it to.
BTW, if all I contributed to this site was my original work and I had the right to make it available to the BBC for all the purposes specified above (grammar?!) I'd not be able to quote Shakespeare saying "Let's kill all the lawyers".
This quote is not my work *but* I have the right to quote it. (Advise to your lawyers; the words "And that" should be replaced by "unless". BTW: I want 20% of the lawyer's fees if is incorporated into the H2G2 rules. )

"So I say the burden of responsibility is on you - so don't post unless you are sure."
No.
You need to show that my post infringes someone's copyright or something. Then I'm forced to remove it. I *cannot* show that "Let's kill all lawyers" does *not* infringe a copyright in the whole wide world. One can never prove a negative. The BBC/H2G2 has to show that my posting infringes a copyright before they can remove my posting. Check out the EU directive 2000/31 . I agree that I did sign this site's rules. But *maybe* this side should move within the EU laws. Not?!
Just the ramblings of a drunk J.D. student...

There is one problem I can see with the site's copyright policy. There seems to be the assumption that all copyrighted work is used WITHOUT permission. The stance of pro-active checking of articles seems to make this even more problematic. It would be difficult to prove that the writer of the article actually had permision to use the copyrighted work. Other than including copies of all correspondence with the copyright holder along with the article, I can see no other way of proving it.

Let's see... what did I write?

Hummm. Oh yes. The burden of responsibility is mine. Still H2G2/BBC need to show that I breached something before we get to the liability bit. Thus the burden of proof is yours.

My advise to the lawyers is not entirely correct. Still, according to the rule you quoted, Mark, I'd not be allowed to quote Shakespeare here as that text is not mine even though there's no copyright on it anymore since the good chap is stone dead. So the rules would need to accommodate such a thing.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the page on UK copyright. That should clear things up. Please give ample examples and the actual wording of the statutes! What if I were to change my name here to say... Hoovooloo (first book / fourth chapter) or any other word plucked from a literary work?

Tube



PS: StevenR, but would you have the right to publish that correspondence? What about the copyright on that?

According to Peta, we are now allowed to "reproduce short extracts of song lyrics in postings". See http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F63887?thread=102746&latest=1 Indeed do many things come to pass...

YeeeHaaaa !!

*throws his beret high in the air, making sure to put it right back on*

Good news, indeed - tx, Peta!

OK, one down, quite a few to go...

SG V