Old, out of date railway publications and Copyright issues

[JimC]

30 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

. The funny part is that the NRM does not have copies of some of the photos this person produced, but until it discovered the fact claimed them as its copyright.

That's quite feasible. Assignation of copyright does not depend on physical ownership of a copy of the item.

[Bucoops]

Hmm, am I in the clear with the GER diagram book photos I have been posting? The book the photos are of is not the NRM copy  - but they do have one and charge for (good quality) copies of the diagrams? It was last updated at around the time of nationalisation.

[rodent279]

Thanks for the informative replies on what has turned out to be quite a minefield, with no real definitive answer!

 

The reason I posted the question was that I have a collection of STN's, WEN's & other docs going back to the early 1980's. One STN in particular relates to arrangements for the Rocket 150 cavalcade at Rainhill, and I know there are people who would be interested in this.

As the event is over 40 years ago, it's hardly current, and I can't see it being in any way commercially sensitive. I suspect anyone trying to chase me for infringement of copyright really ought to have better things to do, but I guess to be on the safe side, it would be best not to.

 

Cheers N

[Derekl]

A factor which may be worth bearing in mind is that while copyright infringement is a civil offence the remedy for which is damages (there are more, such as injunctions but I cannot see that as an issue here) or monetary compensation. In order to establish a claim, the person whose copyright has been infringed must show actual damage and/or that the person who infringed has profited from the infringement. I cannot see that these are likely to be issues in the scenarios above, which may explain the generally relaxed views on copyright issues in these circumstances. There is no loss or gain so no purpose in enforcement.

 

Of course, if you get your hands on a bootleg copy of "No Time to Die" and start flogging it around the neighbourhood, the situation may be different.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Derekl
spelling!!!

[2251]

5 minutes ago, Derekl said:

A factor which may be worth bearing in mind is that while copyright infringement is a civil offence the remedy for which is damages (there are more, such as injunctions but I cannot see that as an issue here) or monetary compensation. In order to establish a claim, the person whose copyright has been infringed must show actual damage and/or that the person who infringed has profited from the infringement. I cannot see that these are likely to be issues in the scenarios above, which may explain the generally relaxed views on copyright issues in these circumstances. There is no loss or gain so no purpose in enforcement.

 

Of course, if you get your hands on a bootleg copy of "No Time to Die" and start flogging it around the neighbourhood, the situation may be different.

 

This is, I am afraid, doubly wrong. Copyright infringement can amount to a criminal offence: see CDPA 1988, section 107.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107

 

Moreover, in a civil action the Court may award "additional" or "flagrancy" (non-compensatory) damages under section 97(2). By way of example, in a case in 1960 under the former Copyright Act, in breach of copyright, wedding photographs were passed to a national newspaper. The circumstances of their publication were particularly distressing. The defendant's benefit from the breach was £15. The trial judge awarded additional damages of £1,000 -- and that decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal.

 

Of course, in practice, the prospect of anyone suing in relation to the kind of material we are talking about is probably vanishingly small.

 

[Derekl]

32 minutes ago, 2251 said:

 

This is, I am afraid, doubly wrong. Copyright infringement can amount to a criminal offence: see CDPA 1988, section 107.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107

 

Moreover, in a civil action the Court may award "additional" or "flagrancy" (non-compensatory) damages under section 97(2). By way of example, in a case in 1960 under the former Copyright Act, in breach of copyright, wedding photographs were passed to a national newspaper. The circumstances of their publication were particularly distressing. The defendant's benefit from the breach was £15. The trial judge awarded additional damages of £1,000 -- and that decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal.

 

Of course, in practice, the prospect of anyone suing in relation to the kind of material we are talking about is probably vanishingly small.

 

 

No, I am afraid it is not "doubly wrong", or even wrong at all - there are circumstances in which copyright infringement can be a criminal offence. None of those are even vaguely contemplated here - perhaps I should have said so, but it seems a bit self-evident that we are not talking about those circumstances.

 

It is also correct that a court may award additional damages where the infringement is "flagrant". I didn't mention that, because it doesn't arise here, as your example makes clear. I take it nobody is asking for advice on whether they should pass celebrity wedding photographs to a national newspaper, or have I missed something?

 

While the concern is understandable, this is one of those areas where, in this context, the risks are small, as you note in your last paragraph, which was the point I was making.

[adb968008]

Hmm...

 

so I buy a notebook.

I use it to take notes at work.

I leave the company.

Who owns the notebook ?

And its reproductive rights ?

Edited January 29, 2021 by adb968008

[2251]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Hmm...

 

so I buy a notebook.

I use it to take notes at work.

I leave the company.

Who owns the notebook ?

And its reproductive rights ?

Ownership of the notebook as an object and ownership of the copyright in the original literary work (the notes) are different.

 

Assuming that your employer did not reimburse you for the notebook, you own that.

 

But because the notes were made in the course of your employment, your employer owns the copyright in the notes. 

 

[Dagworth]

11 minutes ago, 2251 said:

But because the notes were made in the course of your employment, your employer owns the copyright in the notes. 

 

Does that mean I am not able to publish the route learning maps that I drew when I was a train driver?

 

Andi

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, 2251 said:

Ownership of the notebook as an object and ownership of the copyright in the original literary work (the notes) are different.

 

Assuming that your employer did not reimburse you for the notebook, you own that.

 

But because the notes were made in the course of your employment, your employer owns the copyright in the notes. 

 

But if someone photographs the book, on an open page containing those notes ? - with the book owners permission.

who owns the photographic reproductive rights ?

 

Or for that matter hand copies the notes, with the book owners permission ?

 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by adb968008

[JimC]

6 hours ago, Bucoops said:

The book the photos are of is not the NRM copy 

This comes down to the two sets of rights.  As your book is GER it must surely be out of the original copyright. The NRM only hold copyright on their copies, not on yours.I

 

15 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

But if someone photographs the book, on an open page containing those notes ? - with the book owners permission.

who owns the photographic reproductive rights ?

Or for that matter hand copies the notes, with the book owners permission ?

Again its the two forms of copyright. There is copyright on the actual order of words, and there's copyright on the image taken of them.  The two copyrights may be owned by different people. The sensible thing is to get an agreement from employer or former employer. Most are pretty reasonable. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works

[andyman7]

Workings timetables, STNs etc were and are not 'publications'. Indeed they generally stated 'private and not for publication' on the front. Whilst anyone wanting to monetise such resources would be well advise to ensure their legal ducks were in a row, the notion for general private or research purposes that anyone or any body would want to assume creative rights for something that was a functional output of the working railway seems quite frankly ludicrous. 
Even as far as timetables are concerned - well, for what it's worth I spent quite a bit of the 1990s as the person in charge of producing the public timetables for Network SouthCentral and Connex South Central, I can can confidentially assert that neither I nor those aforementioned long lost companies have the slightest desire whatsoever in attempting to chase down anyone that shares the efforts of the small team that I worked with. Indeed I'd be quite happy that anyone bothered to show an interest! 

Edited January 30, 2021 by andyman7
Spelling

[Bucoops]

9 hours ago, JimC said:

This comes down to the two sets of rights.  As your book is GER it must surely be out of the original copyright. The NRM only hold copyright on their copies, not on yours.I

 

 

 

That's what I'm hoping - it's not my book either. it was however later owned and updated by the LNER, with the final updates around 1948.