On 06/10/2023 01:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:04:49 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 03/10/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 03/10/2023 um 10:52 schrieb Pamela:
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT, etc)? >>>>
Is it the patient or the NHS?
It's not intellectual work, therefore copyright doesn't mean anything in >>> this context.
Whether it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it.
That might have been true once, but more recent case law says that for copyright to subsist, the work must be the "author's own intellectual creation".
For which the bar is extraordinarily low, as illustrated by any
photographs by anyone (even a monkey) attracting copyright.
MRI or CT raw data isn't much good to anybody without specialist tools.
--
Martin Brown
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 08:16:33 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 06/10/2023 01:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:04:49 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 03/10/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 03/10/2023 um 10:52 schrieb Pamela:
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT, etc)? >>>>>>
Is it the patient or the NHS?
It's not intellectual work, therefore copyright doesn't mean anything in >>>>> this context.
Whether it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it.
That might have been true once, but more recent case law says that for
copyright to subsist, the work must be the "author's own intellectual
creation".
For which the bar is extraordinarily low, as illustrated by any
photographs by anyone (even a monkey) attracting copyright.
Thank you for agreeing that you were previously wrong to say "Whether
it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it."
And also for agreeing with me that nevertheless it doesn't take much intellectual effort on the part of the radiographer.
On the monkey selfie, however, the US court decision simply said that
only a work by a human qualifies for copyright. So the monkey didn't qualify.
It never reached the separate question of whether the human who set up
the camera, lighting etc, and who encouraged the monkey to play with it, making adjustments when the initial results were poor, would have been entitled to copyright as a result.
And of course, it was about US law rather than UK, where I'm pretty sure those questions would have been relevant, though I'm still not sure what
the outcome would have been.
On 08/10/2023 14:25, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 08:16:33 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 06/10/2023 01:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:04:49 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 03/10/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 03/10/2023 um 10:52 schrieb Pamela:
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT, etc)? >>>>>>
Is it the patient or the NHS?
It's not intellectual work, therefore copyright doesn't mean anything in
this context.
Whether it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it.
That might have been true once, but more recent case law says that for >>> copyright to subsist, the work must be the "author's own intellectual
creation".
For which the bar is extraordinarily low, as illustrated by any
photographs by anyone (even a monkey) attracting copyright.
Thank you for agreeing that you were previously wrong to say "Whether
it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it."
The bar is so low it can hardly be regarded as 'intellectual' in any
normal understanding of the word. Unless of course you regard a monkey
that can press a button as intellectual.
Perhaps you'd give an example or two of 'works' that are not
'intellectual creations' under your definitions?
And also for agreeing with me that nevertheless it doesn't take much intellectual effort on the part of the radiographer.
Since that's something I didn't say or allege, I don't agree at all.
On the monkey selfie, however, the US court decision simply said that
only a work by a human qualifies for copyright. So the monkey didn't qualify.
It never reached the separate question of whether the human who set up
the camera, lighting etc, and who encouraged the monkey to play with it, making adjustments when the initial results were poor, would have been entitled to copyright as a result.
And of course, it was about US law rather than UK, where I'm pretty sure those questions would have been relevant, though I'm still not sure what the outcome would have been.
Since this is a UK group, what do you think it would have been here?
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT, etc)?
Is it the patient or the NHS?
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't
have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright. Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't
have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright. Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great
skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video doorbells, for example.
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 09:28:56 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
MRI or CT raw data isn't much good to anybody without specialist tools.
--
Martin Brown
I had a PET scan a few years ago (they inject you with a radioactive
dye that sticks to anything that shouldn't be inside of you) and then
perform a 3D scan where they can view the results and do a full 360
degree analysis of where the dye has collected.
I asked the consultant if I could get a copy of the images and he said "they're a proprietary format only readable by this software........if
we give you the images you'll need to spend a couple of grand on the
software to be able to view them".
A bit like RealAudio files from many moons ago.
On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 09:28:56 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:collected.
MRI or CT raw data isn't much good to anybody without specialist tools.
--
Martin Brown
I had a PET scan a few years ago (they inject you with a radioactive dye that sticks to anything that shouldn't be inside of you) and then perform a 3D scan where they can view the results and do a full 360 degree analysis of where the dye has
I asked the consultant if I could get a copy of the images and he said "they're a proprietary format only readable by this software........if we give you the images you'll need to spend a couple of grand on the software to be able to view them".
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 08:16:33 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 06/10/2023 01:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:04:49 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 03/10/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 03/10/2023 um 10:52 schrieb Pamela:
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT, etc)? >>>>>>
Is it the patient or the NHS?
It's not intellectual work, therefore copyright doesn't mean anything in >>>>> this context.
Whether it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it.
That might have been true once, but more recent case law says that for
copyright to subsist, the work must be the "author's own intellectual
creation".
For which the bar is extraordinarily low, as illustrated by any
photographs by anyone (even a monkey) attracting copyright.
Thank you for agreeing that you were previously wrong to say "Whether
it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it."
And also for agreeing with me that nevertheless it doesn't take much intellectual effort on the part of the radiographer.
On the monkey selfie, however, the US court decision simply said that
only a work by a human qualifies for copyright. So the monkey didn't qualify.
It never reached the separate question of whether the human who set up
the camera, lighting etc, and who encouraged the monkey to play with it, making adjustments when the initial results were poor, would have been entitled to copyright as a result.
And of course, it was about US law rather than UK, where I'm pretty sure those questions would have been relevant, though I'm still not sure what
the outcome would have been.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:58:10 +0100, GB wrote...
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't
have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright.
Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as
subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great
skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of
whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video
doorbells, for example.
For copyright to subsist, the work also has to be "original". The
modern view of originality requires that the work be an expression of
"the author's own intellectual creation". I don't think a video
doorbell image qualifies.
On 09/10/2023 11:17, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:58:10 +0100, GB wrote...
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't
have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright.
Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as
subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great
skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of
whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video
doorbells, for example.
For copyright to subsist, the work also has to be "original". The
modern view of originality requires that the work be an expression of
"the author's own intellectual creation". I don't think a video
doorbell image qualifies.
Wasn't there a case not long ago of a monkey that managed to take a snap
of itself whilst playing with a camera?
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:58:10 +0100, GB wrote...
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't
have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright.
Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as
subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great
skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of
whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video
doorbells, for example.
For copyright to subsist, the work also has to be "original". The
modern view of originality requires that the work be an expression of
"the author's own intellectual creation". I don't think a video
doorbell image qualifies.
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 18:56:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 08/10/2023 14:25, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 08:16:33 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 06/10/2023 01:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:04:49 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 03/10/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 03/10/2023 um 10:52 schrieb Pamela:
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT, etc)? >>>>>>>>
Is it the patient or the NHS?
It's not intellectual work, therefore copyright doesn't mean anything in
this context.
Whether it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it.
That might have been true once, but more recent case law says that for >>>>> copyright to subsist, the work must be the "author's own intellectual >>>>> creation".
For which the bar is extraordinarily low, as illustrated by any
photographs by anyone (even a monkey) attracting copyright.
Thank you for agreeing that you were previously wrong to say "Whether
it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it."
The bar is so low it can hardly be regarded as 'intellectual' in any
normal understanding of the word. Unless of course you regard a monkey
that can press a button as intellectual.
I don't. You've misinterpreted the monkey selfie case. Please go back
and read my previous comment, which is still quoted below.
Perhaps you'd give an example or two of 'works' that are not
'intellectual creations' under your definitions?
A football fixture list. See the Football Dataco case below. There was
no copyright, as the list wasn't an intellectual creation.
(However,
there was also a separate question about /sui generis/ database right.)
And also for agreeing with me that nevertheless it doesn't take much
intellectual effort on the part of the radiographer.
Since that's something I didn't say or allege, I don't agree at all.
Please stop trying to split hairs. You said there didn't need to be
anything 'intellectual' in the normal sense of the word as something high-flown. I agree.
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't
have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright. Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
It just needs to be "the author's [i.e. the radiographer's] own
intellectual creation". Nowadays, this is what makes it "original".
But while not requiring very much creativity, there still has to be
some. Mere skill and labour, by themselves, are not enough.
"Football Dataco: skill and labour is dead!" https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2012/03/01/
On the monkey selfie, however, the US court decision simply said that
only a work by a human qualifies for copyright. So the monkey didn't
qualify.
It never reached the separate question of whether the human who set up
the camera, lighting etc, and who encouraged the monkey to play with it, >>> making adjustments when the initial results were poor, would have been
entitled to copyright as a result.
And of course, it was about US law rather than UK, where I'm pretty sure >>> those questions would have been relevant, though I'm still not sure what >>> the outcome would have been.
Since this is a UK group, what do you think it would have been here?
Quote: "...rather than UK, where I'm still not sure what the outcome
would have been."
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't
have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright.
Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great
skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video doorbells, for example.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:58:10 +0100, GB wrote...
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't
have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright.
Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as
subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great
skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of
whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video
doorbells, for example.
For copyright to subsist, the work also has to be "original". The
modern view of originality requires that the work be an expression of
"the author's own intellectual creation". I don't think a video
doorbell image qualifies.
To view PET scans (and MRI scans) you need a DICOM viewer. There are
several free viewers available for Windows. Whether or not you'll be
able to make sense of what you'll be seeing on the screen is another
matter entirely.
--
Jeff
On the monkey selfie, however, the US court decision simply said that
only a work by a human qualifies for copyright. So the monkey didn't qualify.
On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 11:56:05 UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:clearly.
To view PET scans (and MRI scans) you need a DICOM viewer. There are
several free viewers available for Windows. Whether or not you'll be
able to make sense of what you'll be seeing on the screen is another
matter entirely.
--
Jeff
For some reason, the word Nifty is in my head as the image format he mentioned - of course, given that I had something nasty in my lung and all of the "so I've got cancer" thoughts flooding my head at the time, I might be mistaken as I wasn't thinking
On 09/10/2023 11:17, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:58:10 +0100, GB wrote...
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't
have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright.
Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as
subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great
skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of
whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video
doorbells, for example.
For copyright to subsist, the work also has to be "original". The
modern view of originality requires that the work be an expression of
"the author's own intellectual creation". I don't think a video
doorbell image qualifies.
I don't think that's a definition of 'original' either. Not according
to any of the dictionaries I've seen anyway.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean, mean
what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
On 09/10/2023 14:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/10/2023 11:17, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:58:10 +0100, GB wrote...
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't >>>>> have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright. >>>>> Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as >>>> subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great
skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of >>>> whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video
doorbells, for example.
For copyright to subsist, the work also has to be "original". The
modern view of originality requires that the work be an expression of
"the author's own intellectual creation". I don't think a video
doorbell image qualifies.
I don't think that's a definition of 'original' either. Not according
to any of the dictionaries I've seen anyway.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean,
mean what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
You are repeating the mistake you frequently make.
This is uk.legal.moderated. Alt.English.Usage is over there ----->.
"The author's own intellectual creation" is a legal phrase which Tim
kindly placed in quotes, I believe, to indicate such.
You could do worse than obtain no more than the briefest understanding
of "The Infopaq Case" (Ed: do you see what I've done with that phrase
there?) [1] to clarify matters for you which will, it is hoped, assist
you in understanding where you have misdirected yourself.
Once you have grasped the point that "the author's own intellectual
creation" applies to all Berne Convention "works" under the European
acquis, then I would recommend moving on to SAS v World Programming in
which the courts helpfully explicated the "intellectual creation" test
thus:
"The essence of the term is that the person in question has exercised expressive and creative choices in producing the work. The more
restricted the choices, the less likely it is that the product will be
the intellectual creation (or the expression of the intellectual
creation) of the person who produced it."
I trust this assists you in coming to a better, more accurate
understanding of the matter.
As always, I'm happy to help where I can but have been busy of late and haven't been posting as much as I would have liked.
On 09/10/2023 23:03, Simon Parker wrote:
On 09/10/2023 14:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/10/2023 11:17, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:58:10 +0100, GB wrote...
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't >>>>> have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright. >>>>> Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as >>>> subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great
skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of >>>> whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video
doorbells, for example.
For copyright to subsist, the work also has to be "original". The
modern view of originality requires that the work be an expression of
"the author's own intellectual creation". I don't think a video
doorbell image qualifies.
I don't think that's a definition of 'original' either. Not according
to any of the dictionaries I've seen anyway.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean,
mean what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
You are repeating the mistake you frequently make.
This is uk.legal.moderated. Alt.English.Usage is over there ----->.There's no mistake. Laws are written in language to be understood, not
as a starting point for successive iterations like the game of changing
BLACK into WHITE in six easy steps, which is what has happened.
It's a fundamental principle of legal construction in the UK that laws
mean what they say in the ordinary English in which they are expressed. They're supposed to tell people what they must not do, you see, without having to guess that they might some way down the line mean something
else entirely or even the opposite.
The word 'original' is that which is used in the UK legislation. It
properly falls to be interpreted as that word is ordinarily used in the English language, for which the definitive works are what are called dictionaries.
It follows that, if the meaning of the word is in any doubt,
dictionaries will have to be consulted. And if you do that you find
what is obvious anyway to anyone who speaks the language that it means essentially 'the first one', and that's all.
You will look in vain for any definition that refers to 'own
intellectual creation' which in any case has seemingly had to be derived
from 'originality' rather than 'original' which is the word used in the legislation. It's a bit of a giveaway that misinterpretation is at hand.
"The author's own intellectual creation" is a legal phrase which Tim
kindly placed in quotes, I believe, to indicate such.
You could do worse than obtain no more than the briefest understanding
of "The Infopaq Case" (Ed: do you see what I've done with that phrase there?) [1] to clarify matters for you which will, it is hoped, assist
you in understanding where you have misdirected yourself.
Once you have grasped the point that "the author's own intellectual creation" applies to all Berne Convention "works" under the European acquis, then I would recommend moving on to SAS v World Programming in which the courts helpfully explicated the "intellectual creation" test thus:
"The essence of the term is that the person in question has exercised expressive and creative choices in producing the work. The more
restricted the choices, the less likely it is that the product will be
the intellectual creation (or the expression of the intellectual
creation) of the person who produced it."
I trust this assists you in coming to a better, more accurateThe Berne Convention actually says that 'the expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary,
understanding of the matter.
scientific and artistic domain'.
There is no reference there either to 'own intellectual creation'. It
is 'every production'.
As always, I'm happy to help where I can but have been busy of late and haven't been posting as much as I would have liked.I am of course aware how the case law has developed. What you don't
seem able to comprehend is what a wrong path it has followed.
'Original' no longer means what it says. And that's a fundamental misinterpretation.
On 09/10/2023 23:03, Simon Parker wrote:
On 09/10/2023 14:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/10/2023 11:17, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:58:10 +0100, GB wrote...
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't >>>>>> have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright. >>>>>> Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as >>>>> subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great
skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of >>>>> whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video
doorbells, for example.
For copyright to subsist, the work also has to be "original". The
modern view of originality requires that the work be an expression of
"the author's own intellectual creation". I don't think a video
doorbell image qualifies.
I don't think that's a definition of 'original' either. Not according to >>> any of the dictionaries I've seen anyway.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean, mean
what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
You are repeating the mistake you frequently make.
This is uk.legal.moderated. Alt.English.Usage is over there ----->.
There's no mistake. Laws are written in language to be understood, not as
a starting point for successive iterations like the game of changing BLACK into WHITE in six easy steps, which is what has happened.
It's a fundamental principle of legal construction in the UK that laws
mean what they say in the ordinary English in which they are expressed. They're supposed to tell people what they must not do, you see, without having to guess that they might some way down the line mean something else entirely or even the opposite.
The word 'original' is that which is used in the UK legislation. It
properly falls to be interpreted as that word is ordinarily used in the English language, for which the definitive works are what are called dictionaries.
It follows that, if the meaning of the word is in any doubt, dictionaries will have to be consulted. And if you do that you find what is obvious anyway to anyone who speaks the language that it means essentially 'the
first one', and that's all.
You will look in vain for any definition that refers to 'own intellectual creation' which in any case has seemingly had to be derived from 'originality' rather than 'original' which is the word used in the legislation. It's a bit of a giveaway that misinterpretation is at hand.
"The author's own intellectual creation" is a legal phrase which Tim
kindly placed in quotes, I believe, to indicate such.
You could do worse than obtain no more than the briefest understanding of
"The Infopaq Case" (Ed: do you see what I've done with that phrase
there?) [1] to clarify matters for you which will, it is hoped, assist
you in understanding where you have misdirected yourself.
Once you have grasped the point that "the author's own intellectual
creation" applies to all Berne Convention "works" under the European
acquis, then I would recommend moving on to SAS v World Programming in
which the courts helpfully explicated the "intellectual creation" test
thus:
"The essence of the term is that the person in question has exercised
expressive and creative choices in producing the work. The more
restricted the choices, the less likely it is that the product will be
the intellectual creation (or the expression of the intellectual
creation) of the person who produced it."
I trust this assists you in coming to a better, more accurate
understanding of the matter.
The Berne Convention actually says that 'the expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain'.
There is no reference there either to 'own intellectual creation'. It is 'every production'.
As always, I'm happy to help where I can but have been busy of late and
haven't been posting as much as I would have liked.
I am of course aware how the case law has developed. What you don't seem able to comprehend is what a wrong path it has followed. 'Original' no
longer means what it says. And that's a fundamental misinterpretation.
On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 08:53:54 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/10/2023 23:03, Simon Parker wrote:
On 09/10/2023 14:05, Norman Wells wrote:There's no mistake. Laws are written in language to be understood, not
On 09/10/2023 11:17, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:58:10 +0100, GB wrote...
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
In fact, I view an MRI scan as a type of 'photograph', which doesn't >>>>>>> have to have any artistic quality in order to qualify for copyright. >>>>>>> Copyright etc Act 1988, section 4.
I think it is a great shame that photographs are generally accepted as >>>>>> subject to copyright. It presumably dates back to a time when great >>>>>> skill was required, and photos were carefully composed.
Applying the same rules to a machine that automatically takes snaps of >>>>>> whatever happens to wander in front of the lens seems daft to me.
Presumably, somebody owns the copyright to the video taken by video >>>>>> doorbells, for example.
For copyright to subsist, the work also has to be "original". The
modern view of originality requires that the work be an expression of >>>>> "the author's own intellectual creation". I don't think a video
doorbell image qualifies.
I don't think that's a definition of 'original' either. Not according >>>> to any of the dictionaries I've seen anyway.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean,
mean what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
You are repeating the mistake you frequently make.
This is uk.legal.moderated. Alt.English.Usage is over there ----->.
as a starting point for successive iterations like the game of changing
BLACK into WHITE in six easy steps, which is what has happened.
It's a fundamental principle of legal construction in the UK that laws
mean what they say in the ordinary English in which they are expressed.
They're supposed to tell people what they must not do, you see, without
having to guess that they might some way down the line mean something
else entirely or even the opposite.
The word 'original' is that which is used in the UK legislation. It
properly falls to be interpreted as that word is ordinarily used in the
English language, for which the definitive works are what are called
dictionaries.
It follows that, if the meaning of the word is in any doubt,
dictionaries will have to be consulted. And if you do that you find
what is obvious anyway to anyone who speaks the language that it means
essentially 'the first one', and that's all.
You will look in vain for any definition that refers to 'own
intellectual creation' which in any case has seemingly had to be derived
from 'originality' rather than 'original' which is the word used in the
legislation. It's a bit of a giveaway that misinterpretation is at hand.
"The author's own intellectual creation" is a legal phrase which TimThe Berne Convention actually says that 'the expression “literary and
kindly placed in quotes, I believe, to indicate such.
You could do worse than obtain no more than the briefest understanding
of "The Infopaq Case" (Ed: do you see what I've done with that phrase
there?) [1] to clarify matters for you which will, it is hoped, assist
you in understanding where you have misdirected yourself.
Once you have grasped the point that "the author's own intellectual
creation" applies to all Berne Convention "works" under the European
acquis, then I would recommend moving on to SAS v World Programming in
which the courts helpfully explicated the "intellectual creation" test
thus:
"The essence of the term is that the person in question has exercised
expressive and creative choices in producing the work. The more
restricted the choices, the less likely it is that the product will be
the intellectual creation (or the expression of the intellectual
creation) of the person who produced it."
I trust this assists you in coming to a better, more accurate
understanding of the matter.
artistic works” shall include every production in the literary,
scientific and artistic domain'.
There is no reference there either to 'own intellectual creation'. It
is 'every production'.
As always, I'm happy to help where I can but have been busy of late andI am of course aware how the case law has developed. What you don't
haven't been posting as much as I would have liked.
seem able to comprehend is what a wrong path it has followed.
'Original' no longer means what it says. And that's a fundamental
misinterpretation.
Whereas I agree with you that the CJEU took a wrong turn when it decided that "original" means "the author's own intellectual
creation", even before that decision the word "original" in the 1988 Act (and earlier Acts) was not interpreted in accordance with the dictionary definition. It was taken to mean something that involved the author's own skill and labour,
and that wasn't simply copied from elsewhere.
"Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote in message news:MPG.3f8cbd892b71d706989f64@text.usenet.plus.net...
On the monkey selfie, however, the US court decision simply said that
only a work by a human qualifies for copyright. So the monkey didn't
qualify.
A Court comprised exclusively of humans, it maybe goes without saying.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 11:17:06 +0100, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
For copyright to subsist, the work also has to be "original". The
modern view of originality requires that the work be an expression of
"the author's own intellectual creation". I don't think a video
doorbell image qualifies.
It's generally accepted that if a person configures a camera to take a photo or video when triggered by certain conditions, then that constitutes the author's own intellectual creation. It doesn't have to mean a physical
finger on the shutter.
There's no difference, legally speaking, between
setting the camera to "wait ten seconds and then take a photo" (commonly
used to allow the photographer time to get into shot themselves), "take a photo every minute" (eg, in order to create a time-lapse) and "wait until
the motion detector detects motion, and then take a photo". The key in all cases is that the conditions under which the photo will be taken are set by the human operator.
Ring's terms and conditions don't explicitly state that the owner of the doorbell owns the copyright, but are worded in a way which makes that presumption. For example, in the section where it talks about sharing
content via the "Ring Neighbors" and "Ring Community" features that you
grant Ring a licence to use the content. That would be meaningless if the owner of the device was not the rightsholder, as only the rightsholder can grant a licence to use the content. And it also explicitly prohibits sharing any content that the user does not own, which, again, would be meaningless
if the doorbell's owner didn't own the content it generates.
The Berne Convention actually says that 'the expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary,
scientific and artistic domain'.
There is no reference there either to 'own intellectual creation'. It
is 'every production'.
I am of course aware how the case law has developed.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean, mean
what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:48:20 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
The Berne Convention actually says that 'the expression “literary and
artistic works” shall include every production in the literary,
scientific and artistic domain'.
There is no reference there either to 'own intellectual creation'. It
is 'every production'.
Every production --in the artistic domain--.
This says nothing about what member states can choose to protect or not protect, when it comes to works which are /not/ in the artistic domain.
I.e. which are not intellectual creations.
I am of course aware how the case law has developed.
Strange, then, that you started this sub-thread saying "Whether it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it." Whereas now you reluctantly
accept that it does (but you don't like it).
On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 15:17:43 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote...
There's no difference, legally speaking, between
setting the camera to "wait ten seconds and then take a photo" (commonly
used to allow the photographer time to get into shot themselves), "take a
photo every minute" (eg, in order to create a time-lapse) and "wait until
the motion detector detects motion, and then take a photo". The key in all >> cases is that the conditions under which the photo will be taken are set by >> the human operator.
However, do you have a modern reference for that, in cases where
everything is fully automatic? E.g. triggered by an automatic motion >detector. Or just one photo per minute, irrespective of whether
anything of interest is in view?
I can see a distinction between that and the ten second delay set by the >photograher, or the time-lapse of, say, a sunset. In those cases, the >photographer is still in control of how the camera is set up relative to
the subject, how the photo is taken, etc.
The nearest reference I could find in a quick search was >https://tinyurl.com/yeysmyxm
leading to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Pre- >positioned_recording_devices
For England, this refers to Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland,
concerning security camera stills of Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed
shortly before their deaths in an underpass, pursued by paparazzi. But
I think the law has moved on since.
Back then, both parties just seem to have assumed that the stills would
have had copyright (the outdated Norman Wells view of the law). But
that was a number of years before the "author's own intellectual
creation" doctrine took hold in English law. I think the result might
be rather different today, when "original" requires "the author's own >intellectual creation".
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
A football fixture list. See the Football Dataco case below. There was
no copyright, as the list wasn't an intellectual creation.
Why then would anyone want to copy it if it's so easy to create ab
initio and requires no intellect? And why should they be allowed to?
People are always free to make their own lists just as long as they
don't copy someone else's.
I think this is an absurd decision. Don't you?
I think the basic principle should be 'if it's worth copying it's worth >protection'. Don't you?
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:48:20 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
The Berne Convention actually says that 'the expression “literary and
artistic works” shall include every production in the literary,
scientific and artistic domain'.
There is no reference there either to 'own intellectual creation'. It
is 'every production'.
Every production --in the artistic domain--.
This says nothing about what member states can choose to protect or not protect, when it comes to works which are /not/ in the artistic domain.
I.e. which are not intellectual creations.
I am of course aware how the case law has developed.
Strange, then, that you started this sub-thread saying "Whether it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it." Whereas now you reluctantly
accept that it does (but you don't like it).
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 14:05:31 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean, mean
what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
For a common law jurisdiction such as the UK, that would not be
old-fashioned but, rather, entirely novel. Case law has, literally, existed since time immemorial.
Back then, both parties just seem to have assumed that the stills would
have had copyright (the outdated Norman Wells view of the law). But
that was a number of years before the "author's own intellectual
creation" doctrine took hold in English law. I think the result might
be rather different today, when "original" requires "the author's own intellectual creation".
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 13:02:34 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 09/10/2023 01:26, Tim Jackson wrote:
A football fixture list. See the Football Dataco case below. There was >>> no copyright, as the list wasn't an intellectual creation.
Why then would anyone want to copy it if it's so easy to create ab
initio and requires no intellect? And why should they be allowed to?
People are always free to make their own lists just as long as they
don't copy someone else's.
The point is that Football DataCo didn't "make" a list. The fixture list is
a necessary part of running a football league competition. There are a
number of criteria involved in generating the fixtures (including trying to alternate home and away fixtures for teams, and to avoid/prefer derbies on certain dates, etc), and there is intellectual property in the software
which generates those fixtures. But once generated, the fixtures are a
matter of simple fact, not an intellectual creation in their own right.
I think this is an absurd decision. Don't you?
No, it was absolutely the right decision. The real absurdity is that
Football DataCo got away with asserting a non-existent right for so long, before one of the organisations they were trying to gouge finally stood up
to them.
I think the basic principle should be 'if it's worth copying it's worth
protection'. Don't you?
So you'd extend copyright indefinitely, and abolish the entire concept of works entering the public domain? Because even old photos and old books are worth copying.
Mark
On 10/10/2023 18:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
The point is that Football DataCo didn't "make" a list. The fixture list is >> a necessary part of running a football league competition. There are a
number of criteria involved in generating the fixtures (including trying to >> alternate home and away fixtures for teams, and to avoid/prefer derbies on >> certain dates, etc), and there is intellectual property in the software
which generates those fixtures. But once generated, the fixtures are a
matter of simple fact, not an intellectual creation in their own right.
But the case wasn't decided on that basis.
Mr Jackson says above it was
decided on the basis that it wasn't an intellectual creation.
No, it was absolutely the right decision. The real absurdity is that
Football DataCo got away with asserting a non-existent right for so long,
before one of the organisations they were trying to gouge finally stood up >> to them.
Under 'original work' I say they had a perfect right.
I think the basic principle should be 'if it's worth copying it's worth
protection'. Don't you?
So you'd extend copyright indefinitely, and abolish the entire concept of
works entering the public domain? Because even old photos and old books are >> worth copying.
It's a matter of philosophy. There's an argument for perpetuity. After
all, why should anyone ever be allowed just to copy someone else's work >rather than make a similar effort themselves and create something else?
But there's an argument too for a limited term of protection, like
patents, so as to put in the public domain anything after a reasonable >monopoly period in which the author can make what he can from it.
I'm in the latter camp.
On 10/10/2023 17:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 14:05:31 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean, mean
what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
For a common law jurisdiction such as the UK, that would not be
old-fashioned but, rather, entirely novel. Case law has, literally, existed >> since time immemorial.
Not all law in a common law jurisdiction is case law. There is Statute
law too, which is the only sort of law that can possibly say what it
means and mean what it says.
And Statute law is what the Copyright Designs and Patents Act is.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 19:37:32 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 18:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
The point is that Football DataCo didn't "make" a list. The fixture list is >>> a necessary part of running a football league competition. There are a
number of criteria involved in generating the fixtures (including trying to >>> alternate home and away fixtures for teams, and to avoid/prefer derbies on >>> certain dates, etc), and there is intellectual property in the software
which generates those fixtures. But once generated, the fixtures are a
matter of simple fact, not an intellectual creation in their own right.
But the case wasn't decided on that basis.
Yes, it was.
Mr Jackson says above it was
decided on the basis that it wasn't an intellectual creation.
Precisely.
The fixture list is an inevitable side-effect of runing a league
competition. It is not, therefore, an intellectual creation.
No, it was absolutely the right decision. The real absurdity is that
Football DataCo got away with asserting a non-existent right for so long, >>> before one of the organisations they were trying to gouge finally stood up >>> to them.
Under 'original work' I say they had a perfect right.
Football DataCo didn't generate the fixture list. No human generated the fixture list. The fixture list was generated by software owned by the
Premier League and English Football League.
I think the basic principle should be 'if it's worth copying it's worth >>>> protection'. Don't you?
So you'd extend copyright indefinitely, and abolish the entire concept of >>> works entering the public domain? Because even old photos and old books are >>> worth copying.
It's a matter of philosophy. There's an argument for perpetuity. After
all, why should anyone ever be allowed just to copy someone else's work
rather than make a similar effort themselves and create something else?
But there's an argument too for a limited term of protection, like
patents, so as to put in the public domain anything after a reasonable
monopoly period in which the author can make what he can from it.
I'm in the latter camp.
So you don't actually think that if it's worth copying then it's worth protecting. Glad we cleared that up.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 18:07:41 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 17:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 14:05:31 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean, mean >>>> what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
For a common law jurisdiction such as the UK, that would not be
old-fashioned but, rather, entirely novel. Case law has, literally, existed >>> since time immemorial.
Not all law in a common law jurisdiction is case law. There is Statute
law too, which is the only sort of law that can possibly say what it
means and mean what it says.
In a common law system, all statute law can be interpreted and clarified by case law.
And Statute law is what the Copyright Designs and Patents Act is.
Indeed it is. And, like all statute law, it can be interpreted and clarified by case law.
On 11/10/2023 21:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
Football DataCo didn't generate the fixture list. No human generated the
fixture list. The fixture list was generated by software owned by the
Premier League and English Football League.
No human generates a photograph. He just initiates a mechanical or >electronic process in just the same way as Football DataCo did in
producing its fixture list. So, what's the difference?
Anyway, under UK law as it stands, which undoubtedly gives copyright >protection to photographs, I say what Football DataCo produced was (a) a
work and (b) original. Being written, it therefore qualifies for
copyright protection under the straightforward meaning of the words
'original literary work'.
On 11/10/2023 21:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
Indeed it is. And, like all statute law, it can be interpreted and clarified >> by case law.
Only where necessary, which it isn't here.
There is nothing that needs to be interpreted or clarified in the
expression 'original work'. They're simple enough English words, and
they, not anything else, are the law of the land.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 22:18:42 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 21:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
Indeed it is. And, like all statute law, it can be interpreted and clarified
by case law.
Only where necessary, which it isn't here.
There is nothing that needs to be interpreted or clarified in the
expression 'original work'. They're simple enough English words, and
they, not anything else, are the law of the land.
Define "original".
Define "work".
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 22:12:25 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 21:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
Football DataCo didn't generate the fixture list. No human generated the >>> fixture list. The fixture list was generated by software owned by the
Premier League and English Football League.
No human generates a photograph. He just initiates a mechanical or
electronic process in just the same way as Football DataCo did in
producing its fixture list. So, what's the difference?
The photo is the intended result. The camera is just the tool.
In the case of the fixture list, the list is not the intended result. It's simply a by-product of the intended result. The intended reasult is a functioning league competition.
Anyway, under UK law as it stands, which undoubtedly gives copyright
protection to photographs, I say what Football DataCo produced was (a) a
work and (b) original. Being written, it therefore qualifies for
copyright protection under the straightforward meaning of the words
'original literary work'.
A minor flaw in your argument is that the law isn't based on what you say.
On 12/10/2023 09:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 22:18:42 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 11/10/2023 21:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
Indeed it is. And, like all statute law, it can be interpreted and clarified
by case law.
Only where necessary, which it isn't here.
There is nothing that needs to be interpreted or clarified in the
expression 'original work'. They're simple enough English words, and
they, not anything else, are the law of the land.
Define "original".
Define "work".
If anyone cannot understand simple words, they need to refer to what are >called dictionaries. Most, though, mean what they say, and are well >understood. And that's the case here.
On 12/10/2023 09:30, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 22:12:25 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 11/10/2023 21:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
Football DataCo didn't generate the fixture list. No human generated the >>>> fixture list. The fixture list was generated by software owned by the
Premier League and English Football League.
No human generates a photograph. He just initiates a mechanical or
electronic process in just the same way as Football DataCo did in
producing its fixture list. So, what's the difference?
The photo is the intended result. The camera is just the tool.
In the case of the fixture list, the list is not the intended result. It's >> simply a by-product of the intended result. The intended reasult is a
functioning league competition.
That may be the FA's objective Football DataCo's objective is just to >produce the fixture list. And it's their objective we're concerned with.
Anyway, under UK law as it stands, which undoubtedly gives copyright
protection to photographs, I say what Football DataCo produced was (a) a >>> work and (b) original. Being written, it therefore qualifies for
copyright protection under the straightforward meaning of the words
'original literary work'.
A minor flaw in your argument is that the law isn't based on what you say.
The law is what it says. And, under all of the accepted rules of
Statutory interpretation, that's what it means.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the nature of the content doesn't
affect the rights. If I was taking photos of my children in the garden, and it just so happened that a plane crashed into the park at that precise time and one of the photos showed the crash, it would still be my copyright. There's a well-known video online taken by videographer who was doing a wedding shoot in Beirut at the precise time of the ammonium nitrate explosion; it's not what he intended to capture but it is, nonetheless, his copyright. And that, I think, has bearing on the Diana paperazzi case; just because that's not what the cameras were intended to capture doesn't mean there's no copyright in them. For many security cameras, indeed, the most desirable content is absolutely nothing of interest at all - just an empty room or a street with nothing remarkable happening. But when something does happen which is caputured on those cameras, even if it's of actions which
are entirely unrelated to the reasons why the cameras were installed, it's
as much the copyright of the camera operator as their intended footage.
On 10/10/2023 16:52, Tim Jackson wrote:
Back then, both parties just seem to have assumed that the stills would have had copyright (the outdated Norman Wells view of the law). But
that was a number of years before the "author's own intellectual
creation" doctrine took hold in English law. I think the result might
be rather different today, when "original" requires "the author's own intellectual creation".
Just a couple of questions:
1) Were they photographs, irrespective of artistic quality?
2) Had they existed before?
Answer yes to (1) and no to (2)? Then answer this one too:
3) How are they not original artistic works *according to ordinary
English*?
On 2023-10-10, Mark Goodge wrote:
It's also worth bearing in mind that the nature of the content doesn't
affect the rights. If I was taking photos of my children in the garden, and >> it just so happened that a plane crashed into the park at that precise time >> and one of the photos showed the crash, it would still be my copyright.
There's a well-known video online taken by videographer who was doing a
wedding shoot in Beirut at the precise time of the ammonium nitrate
explosion; it's not what he intended to capture but it is, nonetheless, his >> copyright. And that, I think, has bearing on the Diana paperazzi case; just >> because that's not what the cameras were intended to capture doesn't mean
there's no copyright in them. For many security cameras, indeed, the most
desirable content is absolutely nothing of interest at all - just an empty >> room or a street with nothing remarkable happening. But when something does >> happen which is caputured on those cameras, even if it's of actions which
are entirely unrelated to the reasons why the cameras were installed, it's >> as much the copyright of the camera operator as their intended footage.
Just out of curiosity, and wandering off the topic of UK law...
I know that some other countries do not have freedom of panorama and
allow copyright on art works to restrict photography of them. Can that
apply to moving artworks such as a large sculpture being transported
between sites on the back of a truck?
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/10/2023 09:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 22:18:42 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 11/10/2023 21:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
Indeed it is. And, like all statute law, it can be interpreted and clarified
by case law.
Only where necessary, which it isn't here.
There is nothing that needs to be interpreted or clarified in the
expression 'original work'. They're simple enough English words, and
they, not anything else, are the law of the land.
Define "original".
Define "work".
If anyone cannot understand simple words, they need to refer to what are
called dictionaries. Most, though, mean what they say, and are well
understood. And that's the case here.
So which of the dictionary entries for those words (there are, after all, many) relate to the legislation?
Bearing in mind, also, that dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe usage or define meaning.
So a word can change its usage, and hence
dictionary entry, over time. When that happens, do you think that changes
the legislation which uses that word?
On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:52:15 +0100, Pamela wrote...
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT, etc)?
Is it the patient or the NHS?
https://tinyurl.com/33xymbkf
which leads to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Copyright_of_Medical_Imaging
#W orks_created_in_the_United_Kingdom
On 12/10/2023 16:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 12/10/2023 09:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 22:18:42 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 11/10/2023 21:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
Indeed it is. And, like all statute law, it can be interpreted and clarified
by case law.
Only where necessary, which it isn't here.
There is nothing that needs to be interpreted or clarified in the
expression 'original work'. They're simple enough English words, and >>>>> they, not anything else, are the law of the land.
Define "original".
Define "work".
If anyone cannot understand simple words, they need to refer to what are >>> called dictionaries. Most, though, mean what they say, and are well
understood. And that's the case here.
So which of the dictionary entries for those words (there are, after all,
many) relate to the legislation?
If it's necessary to refer to any, which in this case it's not because
the words used are very simple to understand, then it's those that are
the most common in ordinary use, which are usually the first in any dictionary that is applicable.
Bearing in mind, also, that dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe >> usage or define meaning.
Oh dear. It is the *primary* function of any dictionary to define what
words mean. And you will find that they all do immediately following
what part of speech it is.
Surely you leant that at school?
So a word can change its usage, and hence
dictionary entry, over time. When that happens, do you think that changes
the legislation which uses that word?
No. The legislation is constant. It means what it did when it was enacted.
On 15:10 3 Oct 2023, Tim Jackson said:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:52:15 +0100, Pamela wrote...
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT, etc)?
Is it the patient or the NHS?
https://tinyurl.com/33xymbkf
which leads to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Copyright_of_Medical_Imaging
#W orks_created_in_the_United_Kingdom
It's interesting (according to the mainly American entry in Wikipedia):
"the situation of x-rays will not necessarily conform to a simple
solo photographer model. The necessary creativity and originality
could arguably come from a physician who orders an x-ray taken at a
particular angle or for a certain length of time, rather than the
technician who carries out the orders."
It seems to be anticipating comparison with a photographic situation with
a model release form.
Oh dear. It is the *primary* function of any dictionary to define what
words mean. And you will find that they all do immediately following
what part of speech it is.
Surely you leant that at school?
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:06:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Oh dear. It is the *primary* function of any dictionary to define what
words mean. And you will find that they all do immediately following
what part of speech it is.
If that was true then dictionaries must precede their languages and so it would be impossible for any spoken language to precede its written form.
Why would the OED document the date of the first different use of words?
Do you believe those dates are when some dictionary defined that use or the date a dictionary lexicographer found that this meaning had come into use?
Surely you learnt that at school?
Not I.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 18:19:15 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 10/10/2023 16:52, Tim Jackson wrote:
Back then, both parties just seem to have assumed that the stills would
have had copyright (the outdated Norman Wells view of the law). But
that was a number of years before the "author's own intellectual
creation" doctrine took hold in English law. I think the result might
be rather different today, when "original" requires "the author's own
intellectual creation".
Just a couple of questions:
1) Were they photographs, irrespective of artistic quality?
2) Had they existed before?
Answer yes to (1) and no to (2)? Then answer this one too:
3) How are they not original artistic works *according to ordinary
English*?
Norman, as usual you're just going round in circles. This point (why ordinary English is not the appropriate criterion) has been answered by several people already. You've not answered the reasons given. You
just repeat the same tired statements about ordinary English and what
you would like the law to be, over and over again.
OK, we understand that you don't like the CJEU's position, and don't
think the UK courts should have followed it. But I'm not going down
your rabbit hole with you. Maybe the Mad Hatter will agree with you and offer more tea.
On 12/10/2023 18:46, Pamela wrote:
On 15:10 3 Oct 2023, Tim Jackson said:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:52:15 +0100, Pamela wrote...
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT,
etc)?
Is it the patient or the NHS?
https://tinyurl.com/33xymbkf
which leads to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/
Copyright_of_Medical_Imagi
ng #W orks_created_in_the_United_Kingdom
It's interesting (according to the mainly American entry in
Wikipedia):
"the situation of x-rays will not necessarily conform to a
simple solo photographer model. The necessary creativity and
originality could arguably come from a physician who orders an
x-ray taken at a particular angle or for a certain length of
time, rather than the technician who carries out the orders."
That makes no sense at all. The technician will select the exposure.
The clinician will choose the angle that he wants the shot from.
Tomography the technician will choose the best slice to show whatever
organ or feature the clinician wants to see in detail and adjust
contrast and resolution to best meet that requirement. The technician
is every bit a photographer and controls the imaging process.
The clinician is just the person who asked for an image to be taken.
In the NHS both are employees of the NHS so it doesn't matter but
with NHS MRI scans being outsourced to privately operated travelling
MRI scanner vans there could be situations where who owns copyright
is blurred.
My instinct is that the private operator of the MRI vans owns the
image copyright unless their contract with the NHS says otherwise.
It seems to be anticipating comparison with a photographic situation
with a model release form.
Hardly. That part still applies if your image ends up in a medical
textbook - I know because one of my dental X-rays is in one.
But ordinary English *is* the appropriate criterion.
It is the 'literal rule of Statutory Interpretation':
"The literal rule requires courts to interpret statutes in their plain, literal and ordinary sense"
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-rules-behind-statutory-interpretation-administrative-law-essay.php#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20Rules%20of,rule%20and%20the%20purposive%20approach.
A parallel situation the author had in mind may have been be an editor
of a popular magazine commissioning a photoshoot and specifying its key parameters such as location, photographer, items to be shown and the
model (whose parallel is the patient in this thread).
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:09:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
But ordinary English *is* the appropriate criterion.
It is the 'literal rule of Statutory Interpretation':
"The literal rule requires courts to interpret statutes in their plain,
literal and ordinary sense"
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-rules-behind-statutory-interpretation-administrative-law-essay.php#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20Rules%20of,rule%20and%20the%20purposive%20approach.
Is a student essay the best you can do?
The disclaimer at the top says
"You should not treat any information in this essay as being
authoritative".
Even then, note that the student also says your literal rule is just one
of four rules of statutory interpretation.
S/he goes on to describe the others, including:
"The purposive approach is implemented to ensure the law is effective as Parliament would have intended. This is used when interpreting EU Law
see Pickstone v Freemans plc.... EU Law overrides all sources of
domestic law, had the literal rule been applied in this case the UK
would have breached its treaty obligations to give effect to an EU
directive"
I know your next line: Now that we have left the EU, Parliament and/or
the Supreme Court are free to say they no longer want to stick with "the author's own intellectual creation". Yes, but so far they haven't said
that. That nice Mr Rees-Mogg probably wanted to put it on his bonfire,
but he has been quietly overruled.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 14:42:49 +0100, Pamela wrote...
A parallel situation the author had in mind may have been be an
editor of a popular magazine commissioning a photoshoot and
specifying its key parameters such as location, photographer, items
to be shown and the model (whose parallel is the patient in this
thread).
I think that relates to the idea / expression dichotomy. There is no copyright in the editor's ideas behind the photoshoot, just in the photographer's resulting expression of those ideas.
On 12/10/2023 16:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
Bearing in mind, also, that dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe >> usage or define meaning.
Oh dear. It is the *primary* function of any dictionary to define what
words mean. And you will find that they all do immediately following
what part of speech it is.
Surely you leant that at school?
On 15:10 3 Oct 2023, Tim Jackson said:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:52:15 +0100, Pamela wrote...
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT, etc)?
Is it the patient or the NHS?
https://tinyurl.com/33xymbkf
which leads to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Copyright_of_Medical_Imaging
#W orks_created_in_the_United_Kingdom
It's interesting (according to the mainly American entry in Wikipedia):
"the situation of x-rays will not necessarily conform to a simple
solo photographer model. The necessary creativity and originality
could arguably come from a physician who orders an x-ray taken at a
particular angle or for a certain length of time, rather than the
technician who carries out the orders."
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 18:46:32 +0100, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Having said that, I think that in the case of any image taken as part of a medical procedure, be it an X-ray, MRI scan or whatever, comparisons with a solo photographer are irrelevent as the image will almost always be a work for hire. So neither the radiographer nor the physician owns the copyright, it will, rather, belong to their employer. Which in the circumstances described in this thread will be the NHS. Or, more specifically, a
particular NHS Trust.
On 09:03 13 Oct 2023, Martin Brown said:
On 12/10/2023 18:46, Pamela wrote:
On 15:10 3 Oct 2023, Tim Jackson said:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:52:15 +0100, Pamela wrote...
Who holds the copyright on NHS medical scans (such as MRI, CT,
etc)?
Is it the patient or the NHS?
https://tinyurl.com/33xymbkf
which leads to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/
Copyright_of_Medical_Imagi
ng #W orks_created_in_the_United_Kingdom
It's interesting (according to the mainly American entry in
Wikipedia):
"the situation of x-rays will not necessarily conform to a
simple solo photographer model. The necessary creativity and
originality could arguably come from a physician who orders an
x-ray taken at a particular angle or for a certain length of
time, rather than the technician who carries out the orders."
That makes no sense at all. The technician will select the exposure.
The clinician will choose the angle that he wants the shot from.
Tomography the technician will choose the best slice to show whatever
organ or feature the clinician wants to see in detail and adjust
contrast and resolution to best meet that requirement. The technician
is every bit a photographer and controls the imaging process.
The clinician is just the person who asked for an image to be taken.
A parallel situation the author had in mind may have been be an editor
of a popular magazine commissioning a photoshoot and specifying its key parameters such as location, photographer, items to be shown and the
model (whose parallel is the patient in this thread).
In the NHS both are employees of the NHS so it doesn't matter but
with NHS MRI scans being outsourced to privately operated travelling
MRI scanner vans there could be situations where who owns copyright
is blurred.
My instinct is that the private operator of the MRI vans owns the
image copyright unless their contract with the NHS says otherwise.
It seems to be anticipating comparison with a photographic situation
with a model release form.
Hardly. That part still applies if your image ends up in a medical
textbook - I know because one of my dental X-rays is in one.
The way I interpreted the text ... it anticipates the objection and
counters it in advance, arriving at a conclusion agreeing with your experience.
On 14/10/2023 13:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 18:46:32 +0100, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
Having said that, I think that in the case of any image taken as part of a >> medical procedure, be it an X-ray, MRI scan or whatever, comparisons with a >> solo photographer are irrelevent as the image will almost always be a work >> for hire. So neither the radiographer nor the physician owns the copyright, >> it will, rather, belong to their employer. Which in the circumstances
described in this thread will be the NHS. Or, more specifically, a
particular NHS Trust.
I think the lines are potentially blurred now with the NHS outsourcing a >proportion of all scans to private medical facilities and mobile MRI
vans operated by for profit companies. Basically they can't retain
enough NHS radiologists or capital spend to provide an adequate service.
From the trade press 5 years ago and things have not improved.
https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/healthcare-policy/nhs-spent-150m-radiology-outsourcing-2017
I suspect the NHS have negotiated that they have the image rights but
who can tell? It would only become clear if for some strange reason a >particular medical image scan had huge commercial value and there was a >copyright dispute over it that went the full distance to court.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:06:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 12/10/2023 16:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
Bearing in mind, also, that dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe
usage or define meaning.
Oh dear. It is the *primary* function of any dictionary to define what
words mean. And you will find that they all do immediately following
what part of speech it is.
Surely you leant that at school?
No; I learnt precisely the opposite: that dictionaries record usage and explain meaning, rather than prescribe definitions and dictate meaning. But maybe that's simply a function of my education. As my English teacher
enjoyed pointing out, there is no English equivalent of the Académie Française, and therefore nobody has the authority to stipulate the meaning of a word.
At least some of what he taught us must have stuck, because I did
get a grade A in O-Level English Language.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 15:31:06 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/10/2023 13:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 18:46:32 +0100, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> >>> wrote:
Having said that, I think that in the case of any image taken as part of a >>> medical procedure, be it an X-ray, MRI scan or whatever, comparisons with a >>> solo photographer are irrelevent as the image will almost always be a work >>> for hire. So neither the radiographer nor the physician owns the copyright, >>> it will, rather, belong to their employer. Which in the circumstances
described in this thread will be the NHS. Or, more specifically, a
particular NHS Trust.
I think the lines are potentially blurred now with the NHS outsourcing a
proportion of all scans to private medical facilities and mobile MRI
vans operated by for profit companies. Basically they can't retain
enough NHS radiologists or capital spend to provide an adequate service.
I don't think that matters directly. If I was, say, a retailer or manufacturer wanting photos of my products for a catalogue (or website), I could either get one of my staff to take them or I could hire a contractor. But either way, it would be a work for hire.
From the trade press 5 years ago and things have not improved.
https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/healthcare-policy/nhs-spent-150m-radiology-outsourcing-2017
I suspect the NHS have negotiated that they have the image rights but
who can tell? It would only become clear if for some strange reason a
particular medical image scan had huge commercial value and there was a
copyright dispute over it that went the full distance to court.
I can't see how the images could be anyting other than the property of the NHS. They need to have control over them both for their own records and for GDPR purposes. Medical images are potentially sensitive personal data; the NHS obviously has justification for retaining them but the photographer - either in-house or external - does not.
On 14/10/2023 12:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:06:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 12/10/2023 16:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
Bearing in mind, also, that dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe
usage or define meaning.
Oh dear. It is the *primary* function of any dictionary to define what
words mean. And you will find that they all do immediately following
what part of speech it is.
Surely you leant that at school?
No; I learnt precisely the opposite: that dictionaries record usage and
explain meaning, rather than prescribe definitions and dictate meaning. But >> maybe that's simply a function of my education. As my English teacher
enjoyed pointing out, there is no English equivalent of the Acadmie
Franaise, and therefore nobody has the authority to stipulate the meaning >> of a word.
I suggest you Google for 'dictionary definitions' and see whether others >agree with you.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 17:08:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/10/2023 12:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:06:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 12/10/2023 16:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
Bearing in mind, also, that dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe
usage or define meaning.
Oh dear. It is the *primary* function of any dictionary to define what >>>> words mean. And you will find that they all do immediately following
what part of speech it is.
Surely you leant that at school?
No; I learnt precisely the opposite: that dictionaries record usage and
explain meaning, rather than prescribe definitions and dictate meaning. But >>> maybe that's simply a function of my education. As my English teacher
enjoyed pointing out, there is no English equivalent of the Académie
Française, and therefore nobody has the authority to stipulate the meaning >>> of a word.
I suggest you Google for 'dictionary definitions' and see whether others
agree with you.
Thank you, I have, and they do. Here's what some of them have to say about "dictionary":
a reference source in print or electronic form containing words usually
alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms,
pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactic and
idiomatic uses
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictionary
a book or digital resource (such as Dictionary.com) containing a selection
of words and information about their meanings, pronunciations,
etymologies, inflected forms, derived forms, etc., in either the same or
another language; lexicon; glossary
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dictionary
a book that contains a list of words in alphabetical order and explains
their meanings, or gives a word for them in another language;
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dictionary
You will note that none of them claim to prescribe definitions. Instead, in the words of the Cambridge Dictionary, they explain meanings.
On 15/10/2023 14:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
You will note that none of them claim to prescribe definitions. Instead, in >> the words of the Cambridge Dictionary, they explain meanings.
*All* dictionaries give definitions of the words they contain, as indeed
they should, and as is universally understood.
"In addition to its *basic function* of *defining* words, a dictionary
may provide information about their pronunciation, grammatical forms ...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictionary
On 13/10/2023 02:49, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:06:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
Oh dear. It is the *primary* function of any dictionary to define what
words mean. And you will find that they all do immediately following
what part of speech it is.
If that was true then dictionaries must precede their languages and so it
would be impossible for any spoken language to precede its written form.
No, that's illogical. Definitions, ie what words have come to mean >precisely, naturally follow their usage not precede it.
Do you believe those dates are when some dictionary defined that use or the >> date a dictionary lexicographer found that this meaning had come into use?
A lexicographer of course records how words are used and what they're >understood to mean at the time of writing. So, he's recording how
Statutes will be understood and if necessary interpreted at that time
because they work on the same principles.
Successive lexicographers will record any changes in the language.
The language is now pretty well codified and settled, largely because of
such lexicographers who have recorded the language.
On 13/10/2023 15:56, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:09:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
But ordinary English *is* the appropriate criterion.
It is the 'literal rule of Statutory Interpretation':
"The literal rule requires courts to interpret statutes in their plain,
literal and ordinary sense"
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-rules-behind-statutory-interpretation-administrative-law-essay.php#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20Rules%20of,rule%20and%20the%20purposive%20approach.
Is a student essay the best you can do?
Of course not. It's just an example of a clear, elementary and
fundamental principle that happens to be correct.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=68342§ion=3.1
https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Literal-rule.php
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:54:12 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 13/10/2023 02:49, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:06:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
Oh dear. It is the *primary* function of any dictionary to define what >>>> words mean. And you will find that they all do immediately following
what part of speech it is.
If that was true then dictionaries must precede their languages and so it >>> would be impossible for any spoken language to precede its written form.
No, that's illogical. Definitions, ie what words have come to mean
precisely, naturally follow their usage not precede it.
So a "definition" is based on usage, then?
Do you believe those dates are when some dictionary defined that use or the >>> date a dictionary lexicographer found that this meaning had come into use? >>A lexicographer of course records how words are used and what they're
understood to mean at the time of writing. So, he's recording how
Statutes will be understood and if necessary interpreted at that time
because they work on the same principles.
So if we want to interpret legislation written in, say, 1972, it's first necessary to find a dictionary published in 1972?
Successive lexicographers will record any changes in the language.
The language is now pretty well codified and settled, largely because of
such lexicographers who have recorded the language.
When I was a kid, "gay" meant happy, "a thing" wasn't a thing, a mouse was a rodent, the web was something made by spiders and a tidal wave was a tidal wave, not a tsunami. We'd never heard of email, or the Internet, or clickbait. A troll was something that lived under a bridge. You could make friends, but there was no such word as "unfriend". You could follow something, but you couldn't unfollow it. We knew what a gig was, but if we heard the phrase "gig economy" we'd assume it meant the business of running
a concert venue. A ghost was a thing from the afterlife, not a verb describing a way of avoiding someone. Woke was the past tense of "to wake".
A stream was a very small river, and music came on a record. Birds tweeted, but none of them retweeted. If someone had mentioned a microchip, we'd have assumed they meant a very small piece of fried potato. "Unlike" meant dissimilar to, not the act of ceasing to like. Free running meant that you didn't have to pay for it. You might find a happy ending in a book or movie, but not a massage parlour. In fact, you'd have struggled to find a massage parlour. A text was something we studied in English Lit. A boss battle might be the result of a workplace dispute. A muffin top was the surface of something you might find at a bakery.
So yeah, the language is pretty well codified and settled.
Just don't tell
anyone who works for a dictionary publisher, or who grew up n the 20th century.
On 15/10/2023 22:05, Mark Goodge wrote:
So a "definition" is based on usage, then?
It follows usage when usage has become consistent and firmed up.
When I was a kid, "gay" meant happy, "a thing" wasn't a thing, a mouse was a >> rodent, the web was something made by spiders and a tidal wave was a tidal >> wave, not a tsunami. We'd never heard of email, or the Internet, or
clickbait. A troll was something that lived under a bridge. You could make >> friends, but there was no such word as "unfriend". You could follow
something, but you couldn't unfollow it. We knew what a gig was, but if we >> heard the phrase "gig economy" we'd assume it meant the business of running >> a concert venue. A ghost was a thing from the afterlife, not a verb
describing a way of avoiding someone. Woke was the past tense of "to wake". >> A stream was a very small river, and music came on a record. Birds tweeted, >> but none of them retweeted. If someone had mentioned a microchip, we'd have >> assumed they meant a very small piece of fried potato. "Unlike" meant
dissimilar to, not the act of ceasing to like. Free running meant that you >> didn't have to pay for it. You might find a happy ending in a book or movie, >> but not a massage parlour. In fact, you'd have struggled to find a massage >> parlour. A text was something we studied in English Lit. A boss battle might >> be the result of a workplace dispute. A muffin top was the surface of
something you might find at a bakery.
So yeah, the language is pretty well codified and settled.
Yes it is, particularly as regards the sort of words used in
legislation, which is what we're talking about. Most of what you've >illustrated are neologisms. They are extensions of language that do not >alter the meanings of existing words but are just additions to the lexicon.
It is almost always clear from the context in legal proceedings which >definition of any word applies.
Just don't tell
anyone who works for a dictionary publisher, or who grew up n the 20th
century.
No-one's arguing that new words do not come into existence, or that old
words are sometimes gives an additional possible interpretation by
popular usage. In context, however, it's rarely a problem.
[snip]On 14/10/2023 13:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
..... comparisons with a
solo photographer are irrelevent as the image will almost always be a work
for hire.
..... If I was, say, a retailer or
manufacturer wanting photos of my products for a catalogue (or website), I could either get one of my staff to take them or I could hire a contractor. But either way, it would be a work for hire.
Not quite. It is clear cut absolutely yours if the image was taken byan
employee *directly* employed by you.
However, if you hire a professional photographer then the image
copyright remains with them or the company that they work for by default unless you agree otherwise in advance (or later buy out the copyright).
It makes no difference who owns the copyright provided that you only use
the image for the purpose it was taken. It only becomes a big issue if
the image has significant commercial value and you sell it elsewhere.
(such images are rare but not incredibly so)
Same applies to wedding photographers although most people are unaware -
they retain the image copyright even though you commissioned the work.
https://www.theweddingsecret.co.uk/magazine/wedding-photography-copyright/
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 16:41:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
On 13/10/2023 15:56, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:09:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
But ordinary English *is* the appropriate criterion.
It is the 'literal rule of Statutory Interpretation':
"The literal rule requires courts to interpret statutes in their plain, >>>> literal and ordinary sense"
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-rules-behind-statutory-interpretation-administrative-law-essay.php#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20Rules%20of,rule%20and%20the%20purposive%20approach.
Is a student essay the best you can do?
Of course not. It's just an example of a clear, elementary and
fundamental principle that happens to be correct.
Sorry, Norman, your voice is extremely muffled coming from the bottom of
that rabbit hole. I'm having difficulty making sense of whatever you
were trying to say.
However, a couple of links did come through:
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=68342§ion=3.1
https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Literal-rule.php
Thank you for providing more sources of what your previous student essay
was saying,
though you have to explore the menus on the left hand side
to get the detail.
Namely, that while the literal rule comes first, it is not the only
rule.
As time had gone by, the courts have found more and more cases
where it's not right, and your sources say that you have to consider and apply the other rules.
And specifically, both the websites you link say that when considering
the effect of EU law and CJEU rulings, you need to apply the purposive approach.
And both say that this affects the interpretation of domestic law as
well as EU law.
This is why the UK courts no longer apply the literal rule to
"original" in copyright cases, but instead use the purposive
construction "the author's own intellectual creation".
Again, thank you for the three references you have now provided which
confirm this use of a purposive approach.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:38:02 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-10, Mark Goodge wrote:
It's also worth bearing in mind that the nature of the content doesn't
affect the rights. If I was taking photos of my children in the garden, and >>> it just so happened that a plane crashed into the park at that precise time >>> and one of the photos showed the crash, it would still be my copyright.
There's a well-known video online taken by videographer who was doing a
wedding shoot in Beirut at the precise time of the ammonium nitrate
explosion; it's not what he intended to capture but it is, nonetheless, his >>> copyright. And that, I think, has bearing on the Diana paperazzi case; just >>> because that's not what the cameras were intended to capture doesn't mean >>> there's no copyright in them. For many security cameras, indeed, the most >>> desirable content is absolutely nothing of interest at all - just an empty >>> room or a street with nothing remarkable happening. But when something does >>> happen which is caputured on those cameras, even if it's of actions which >>> are entirely unrelated to the reasons why the cameras were installed, it's >>> as much the copyright of the camera operator as their intended footage.
Just out of curiosity, and wandering off the topic of UK law...
I know that some other countries do not have freedom of panorama and
allow copyright on art works to restrict photography of them. Can that >>apply to moving artworks such as a large sculpture being transported >>between sites on the back of a truck?
That would be very jurisdiction dependent. In France, which doesn't have general freedom of panorama, it would depend on whether the photo was specifically of the sculpture or whether it was merely an incidental
capture. For example, if you knew that a famous sculpture (possibly one not normally visible in public) was due to be moved by road so you waited for
the truck to come past and took a photo of it, that would be an
infringement. But if you were just taking photos of the street, and coincidentally happened to take one which included the statue on the truck, it wouldn't be an infringement as it would be a merely incidental inclusion. So CCTV footage that happened to capture it wouldn't be an infringement.
The fact that France doesn't have freedom of panorama, but does have an incidental inclusion exemption, can lead to some very borderline edge cases where a work subject to copyright appears as a relatively small part of a photograph. For example, a general street scene which just happens to
include a modern sculpture, or a landscape that happens to include a distant shot of a modern bridge (the Millau Viaduct is a classic example). There doesn't appear to be any particular rule of thumb as to how these are determined, it's all done on a case by case basis.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:09:35 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 22:05, Mark Goodge wrote:
So a "definition" is based on usage, then?
It follows usage when usage has become consistent and firmed up.
So what happens when usage changes?
When I was a kid, "gay" meant happy, "a thing" wasn't a thing, a mouse was a
rodent, the web was something made by spiders and a tidal wave was a tidal >>> wave, not a tsunami. We'd never heard of email, or the Internet, or
clickbait. A troll was something that lived under a bridge. You could make >>> friends, but there was no such word as "unfriend". You could follow
something, but you couldn't unfollow it. We knew what a gig was, but if we >>> heard the phrase "gig economy" we'd assume it meant the business of running >>> a concert venue. A ghost was a thing from the afterlife, not a verb
describing a way of avoiding someone. Woke was the past tense of "to wake". >>> A stream was a very small river, and music came on a record. Birds tweeted, >>> but none of them retweeted. If someone had mentioned a microchip, we'd have >>> assumed they meant a very small piece of fried potato. "Unlike" meant
dissimilar to, not the act of ceasing to like. Free running meant that you >>> didn't have to pay for it. You might find a happy ending in a book or movie,
but not a massage parlour. In fact, you'd have struggled to find a massage >>> parlour. A text was something we studied in English Lit. A boss battle might
be the result of a workplace dispute. A muffin top was the surface of
something you might find at a bakery.
So yeah, the language is pretty well codified and settled.
Yes it is, particularly as regards the sort of words used in
legislation, which is what we're talking about. Most of what you've
illustrated are neologisms. They are extensions of language that do not
alter the meanings of existing words but are just additions to the lexicon.
I think you'll find that words like "ghost", "woke", "stream", "gig", "gay", and "text" have been around for a very long time. it's the meaning that is new, not the word.
It is almost always clear from the context in legal proceedings which
definition of any word applies.
Oh, so not the first entry for the word in the dictionary, then?
Just don't tell
anyone who works for a dictionary publisher, or who grew up n the 20th
century.
No-one's arguing that new words do not come into existence, or that old
words are sometimes gives an additional possible interpretation by
popular usage. In context, however, it's rarely a problem.
But what do you do on the occasions when it is a problem?
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:04:49 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
Whether it's an intellectual work doesn't come into it.
That might have been true once, but more recent case law says that for copyright to subsist, the work must be the "author's own intellectual creation".
However, I don't think you can just dismiss an MRI scan as not being an intellectual creation. I imagine that a radiographer has to put in at
least some intellectual effort in order to get a good scan which shows
the required features of the patient's body.
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 01:58:24 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote...
Interesting article here, published in the post-Brexit transition
period. It relates to copyright in fabric designs, but applicable more generally:
"Cofemel v G-Star Raw (C-683/17) and its effect on UK copyright law
before and after Brexit"
https://tinyurl.com/24zjmzv8
which leads to https://www.bristows.com/viewpoint/articles/cofemel-v-g-star-raw-c-683- 17-and-its-effect-on-uk-copyright-law-before-and-after-brexit/
Quote:
"After Brexit, whether there is a deal or not, the CJEU
decision will be considered to be binding on the UK’s lower
courts in the same way that Supreme Court judgments are.
It is possible that we will see a case on this point reach
the UK Supreme Court in the next few years..."
The article confirms that under CJEU case law, originality requires the "author’s own intellectual creation".
It also confirms what I say above, that you can't just dismiss an MRI
scan, as long as there has been some level of intellectual creation:
"National laws which make copyright protection dependent on
artistic value or have an artistic intention requirement, are
not acceptable."
So as long as there is an intellectual creation, there is no big issue
with "irrespective of artistic quality" in section 4 of the UK Copyright
etc Act.
Something I hadn't previously considered is that while CJEU decisions
require "intellectual creation" as part of the test for originality, it
is a uniform test.
So in some respects, e.g. for sculptures and works of artistic
craftsmanship, this might actually *lower* the UK's previous
requirements:
"This judgment has opened a potential can of worms for UK
copyright. Under the current CDPA, certain types of copyright
work have other requirements in addition to originality in
order to acquire copyright protection."
On 16/10/2023 11:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:09:35 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
No-one's arguing that new words do not come into existence, or that old
words are sometimes gives an additional possible interpretation by
popular usage. In context, however, it's rarely a problem.
But what do you do on the occasions when it is a problem?
The courts decide, after hearing argument, which is the 'true' >interpretation.
But, as I said, it's rarely a problem in practice.
Legislators are very careful, where they can, to be precise, even to the >extent of providing a definitions section which says how certain terms
in any Act are to be interpreted.
Imprecision applies more to subjective words like 'dishonestly' or
'tending to deprave and corrupt' which have to be interpreted according
to current standards than to objective ones like 'original work' which
don't.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 14:16:36 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 11:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:09:35 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
No-one's arguing that new words do not come into existence, or that old >>>> words are sometimes gives an additional possible interpretation by
popular usage. In context, however, it's rarely a problem.
But what do you do on the occasions when it is a problem?
The courts decide, after hearing argument, which is the 'true'
interpretation.
That is *exactly* what case law does.
But, as I said, it's rarely a problem in practice.
Indeed, it isn't. The majority of cases don't go to appeal, and those which do rarely turn on the meanings of words. But, every now and then, there is case which goes to appeal and which does turn on the meanings of words.
So then the court has to decide which of the many possible meanings of the word
is the one which is most applicable. Which is the system working precisely
as intended.
Legislators are very careful, where they can, to be precise, even to the
extent of providing a definitions section which says how certain terms
in any Act are to be interpreted.
Imprecision applies more to subjective words like 'dishonestly' or
'tending to deprave and corrupt' which have to be interpreted according
to current standards than to objective ones like 'original work' which
don't.
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the legislation?
On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the >> OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the
legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable,
consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
On 16/10/2023 17:12, Tim Jackson wrote:
So as long as there is an intellectual creation, there is no big issue
with "irrespective of artistic quality" in section 4 of the UK Copyright
etc Act.
There never was before under a proper reading of the UK Copyright Act.
It just had to be 'original', ie 'new'.
Something I hadn't previously considered is that while CJEU decisions
require "intellectual creation" as part of the test for originality, it
is a uniform test.
But still far more difficult and imprecise than 'original', ie 'new', as
set out in the UK Copyright Act.
If it's worth copying it's worthy of protection is how it should be, at
least for a limited period. How much simpler than reinventing the wheel
or trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Indeed, it isn't. The majority of cases don't go to appeal, and those
which
do rarely turn on the meanings of words. But, every now and then,
there is
case which goes to appeal and which does turn on the meanings of words.
Why are you concerned just with cases that go to appeal? The lower
courts have to decide such things too where necessary.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:10:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the
OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the
legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable,
consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
Why do you think that some of the OED's definitions are unreasonable?
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 18:29:55 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 17:12, Tim Jackson wrote:
So as long as there is an intellectual creation, there is no big issue
with "irrespective of artistic quality" in section 4 of the UK Copyright >>> etc Act.
There never was before under a proper reading of the UK Copyright Act.
It just had to be 'original', ie 'new'.
It also needs to be a work. A work requires the input of at last some effort or skil. Otherwise, it's purely an accident.
Something I hadn't previously considered is that while CJEU decisions
require "intellectual creation" as part of the test for originality, it
is a uniform test.
But still far more difficult and imprecise than 'original', ie 'new', as
set out in the UK Copyright Act.
On the contrary, it clarifies what is meant by "work", making it clear that it only requires a minimal level of deliberate input, and doesn't require
any artistic value.
If it's worth copying it's worthy of protection is how it should be, at
least for a limited period. How much simpler than reinventing the wheel
or trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Copyright has never been based on that, either in the UK or anywhere in the world. Why are you proposing such a radical change?
On 16/10/2023 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:10:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the
OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the
legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable,
consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
Why do you think that some of the OED's definitions are unreasonable?
Because some of them in context won't make any sense, some will even be
the wrong part of speech, and some won't be plain, literal or ordinary
but obscure and unnatural.
I asked you, in the bit you decided to delete:
"What definitions from the OED do you say apply in the interpretation of 'original work', if not 'new' and 'a product of labour'?"
You tell me, and I'll tell you where you're wrong.
On 16 Oct 2023 at 22:11:51 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:10:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the
OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the
legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable,
consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
Why do you think that some of the OED's definitions are unreasonable?
Because some of them in context won't make any sense, some will even be
the wrong part of speech, and some won't be plain, literal or ordinary
but obscure and unnatural.
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
On 16/10/2023 19:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
<snip>
Indeed, it isn't. The majority of cases don't go to appeal, and those
which
do rarely turn on the meanings of words. But, every now and then,
there is
case which goes to appeal and which does turn on the meanings of words.
Why are you concerned just with cases that go to appeal? The lower
courts have to decide such things too where necessary.
I can see where your going wrong. Where a case does go to an upper court
then precedents are made from those interpretation and meaning of words.
Sometimes those definitions change and don't follow your dictionary definitions.
The lower courts generally follow those cases and often form part of the argument in the lower court.
Hopefully you can see that blindly following dictionary definitions
isn't always very helpful when it comes to case law. Assuming you
understand the importance of case law?
On 16/10/2023 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:10:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the
OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the
legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable,
consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
Why do you think that some of the OED's definitions are unreasonable?
Because some of them in context won't make any sense, some will even be
the wrong part of speech, and some won't be plain, literal or ordinary
but obscure and unnatural.
I asked you, in the bit you decided to delete:
"What definitions from the OED do you say apply in the interpretation of >'original work', if not 'new' and 'a product of labour'?"
On 16/10/2023 20:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 18:29:55 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
If it's worth copying it's worthy of protection is how it should be, at
least for a limited period. How much simpler than reinventing the wheel >>> or trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Copyright has never been based on that, either in the UK or anywhere in the >> world. Why are you proposing such a radical change?
It's the philosophy that underlies intellectual property rights
generally,
and the UK Copyright Act as enacted makes a pretty good stab
at it. But only when it is enforceable as written, as was Parliament's >intention.
On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Oct 2023 at 22:11:51 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:10:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the
OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the
legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable,
consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
Why do you think that some of the OED's definitions are unreasonable?
Because some of them in context won't make any sense, some will even be
the wrong part of speech, and some won't be plain, literal or ordinary
but obscure and unnatural.
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you >> personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in
certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings.
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track'
meant not constructing one at all?
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in
certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings.
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track'
meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 22:11:51 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:10:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the
OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the
legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable,
consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
Why do you think that some of the OED's definitions are unreasonable?
Because some of them in context won't make any sense, some will even be
the wrong part of speech, and some won't be plain, literal or ordinary
but obscure and unnatural.
I asked you, in the bit you decided to delete:
"What definitions from the OED do you say apply in the interpretation of
'original work', if not 'new' and 'a product of labour'?"
I'll answer that question after you've answered mine. I note that you
skipped over that, previously.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 22:39:44 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 20:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 18:29:55 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
If it's worth copying it's worthy of protection is how it should be, at >>>> least for a limited period. How much simpler than reinventing the wheel >>>> or trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Copyright has never been based on that, either in the UK or anywhere in the >>> world. Why are you proposing such a radical change?
It's the philosophy that underlies intellectual property rights
generally,
No, it isn't. It really isn't. The philosophy which underlies intellectual property rights generally is the principle that authors (and, subsequently, other creators) should have an incentive to create more.
and the UK Copyright Act as enacted makes a pretty good stab
at it. But only when it is enforceable as written, as was Parliament's
intention.
How do you know what Parliament's intention was?
What was your role in helping to draft the legislation?
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in
certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings.
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track'
meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means
'not construct'.
On 17/10/2023 11:10, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 22:11:51 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 16/10/2023 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:10:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the
OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the
legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable,
consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
Why do you think that some of the OED's definitions are unreasonable?
Because some of them in context won't make any sense, some will even be
the wrong part of speech, and some won't be plain, literal or ordinary
but obscure and unnatural.
I asked you, in the bit you decided to delete:
"What definitions from the OED do you say apply in the interpretation of >>> 'original work', if not 'new' and 'a product of labour'?"
I'll answer that question after you've answered mine. I note that you
skipped over that, previously.
But I have. What do you think the sentence just above your reply means?
On 17/10/2023 11:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 22:39:44 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 16/10/2023 20:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 18:29:55 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
If it's worth copying it's worthy of protection is how it should be, at >>>>> least for a limited period. How much simpler than reinventing the wheel >>>>> or trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. >>>>Copyright has never been based on that, either in the UK or anywhere in the
world. Why are you proposing such a radical change?
It's the philosophy that underlies intellectual property rights
generally,
No, it isn't. It really isn't. The philosophy which underlies intellectual >> property rights generally is the principle that authors (and, subsequently, >> other creators) should have an incentive to create more.
What incentive? It's not money.
and the UK Copyright Act as enacted makes a pretty good stab
at it. But only when it is enforceable as written, as was Parliament's
intention.
How do you know what Parliament's intention was?
From the words it uses of course. If it had any other intention it
would have used different words.
What was your role in helping to draft the legislation?
That's a very silly question.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:24:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in
certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings.
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track'
meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means
'not construct'.
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of
the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily something which requires getting the diggers out.
Mark
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:24:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in
certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings.
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track'
meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means
'not construct'.
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of
the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily something which requires getting the diggers out.
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:24:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in
certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings. >>>>>
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track'
meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means
'not construct'.
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of
the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a
grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily
something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
No question about it when 'original' just meant 'new' as in the UK
Copyright Act.
On 17 Oct 2023 at 13:52:13 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:24:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>> On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in
certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings. >>>>>>
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track' >>>>>> meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means
'not construct'.
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of >>> the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a
grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily >>> something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
I suggest you go back and look at the Auriol Gray thread, all several hundred posts of it. And probably a similar number in unnm.
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of
the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a
grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily
something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
On 2023-10-17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 13:52:13 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:24:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>> On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in >>>>>>> certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings. >>>>>>>
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track' >>>>>>> meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means >>>>> 'not construct'.
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of >>>> the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a >>>> grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily >>>> something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
I suggest you go back and look at the Auriol Gray thread, all several hundred
posts of it. And probably a similar number in unnm.
For the record, I'm sure Mark is right on this one, but you're making
me start to regret my curiosity as to why.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:52:13 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of >>> the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a
grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily >>> something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to >>involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
No, it's in case law. Which, of course, Norman only accepts when the judges agree with him.
On 17 Oct 2023 at 15:45:36 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 13:52:13 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:24:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in >>>>>>>> certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings. >>>>>>>>
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track' >>>>>>>> meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means >>>>>> 'not construct'.
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of >>>>> the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a >>>>> grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily >>>>> something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
I suggest you go back and look at the Auriol Gray thread, all several hundred
posts of it. And probably a similar number in unnm.
For the record, I'm sure Mark is right on this one, but you're making
me start to regret my curiosity as to why.
I'm sure his right too; but if we start talking about we will be swamped by hecklers. And the discussion didn't change any minds last time.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:30:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 22:39:44 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 16/10/2023 20:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 18:29:55 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
If it's worth copying it's worthy of protection is how it should be, at >>>>>> least for a limited period. How much simpler than reinventing the wheel >>>>>> or trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. >>>>>Copyright has never been based on that, either in the UK or anywhere in the
world. Why are you proposing such a radical change?
It's the philosophy that underlies intellectual property rights
generally,
No, it isn't. It really isn't. The philosophy which underlies intellectual >>> property rights generally is the principle that authors (and, subsequently, >>> other creators) should have an incentive to create more.
What incentive? It's not money.
Yes, it is. The original point of copyright (or what later became copyright) was to incentivise the creation of original works to create more works, by giving their creators a sole right to financially exploit those works.
I suggest you spend some time looking at the history of copyright. You might find it educational.
and the UK Copyright Act as enacted makes a pretty good stab
at it. But only when it is enforceable as written, as was Parliament's >>>> intention.
How do you know what Parliament's intention was?
From the words it uses of course. If it had any other intention it
would have used different words.
And how do you interpret those words?
What was your role in helping to draft the legislation?
That's a very silly question.
Well, of course, the answer to it is "absolutely none at all".
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:24:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in
certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings.
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track'
meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means
'not construct'.
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of
the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily something which requires getting the diggers out.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:26:12 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:10, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 22:11:51 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 16/10/2023 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:10:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:Because some of them in context won't make any sense, some will even be >>>> the wrong part of speech, and some won't be plain, literal or ordinary >>>> but obscure and unnatural.
On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the
OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the >>>>>>> legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable,
consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
Why do you think that some of the OED's definitions are unreasonable? >>>>
I asked you, in the bit you decided to delete:
"What definitions from the OED do you say apply in the interpretation of >>>> 'original work', if not 'new' and 'a product of labour'?"
I'll answer that question after you've answered mine. I note that you
skipped over that, previously.
But I have. What do you think the sentence just above your reply means?
It means you didn't answer my questions. Here they are again, separated into two lines:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in
the OED?
Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the legislation?
On 17 Oct 2023 at 12:53:55 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:24:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in
certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings. >>>>>
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track'
meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means
'not construct'.
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of
the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a
grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily
something which requires getting the diggers out.
Mark
No doubt one of the "unnatural" definitions of "construct"!
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:24:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>> On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in
certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings. >>>>>
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track'
meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means
'not construct'.
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of
the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a
grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily
something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 18:29:55 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
decisions
On 16/10/2023 17:12, Tim Jackson wrote:
Something I hadn't previously considered is that while CJEU
require "intellectual creation" as part of the test for originality, it
is a uniform test.
So in some respects, e.g. for sculptures and works of artistic
craftsmanship, this might actually *lower* the UK's previous
requirements:
"This judgment has opened a potential can of worms for UK
copyright. Under the current CDPA, certain types of copyright
work have other requirements in addition to originality in
order to acquire copyright protection."
Indeed. Copyright law is in a right muddle due in no small part to
European judges meddling in things they don't understand but feel they
should control, and it desperately needs root and branch reform.
A good illustration of what a mess it's in is actually over sculptures
and what various judges have felt constrained, variously, to hold them
to be. See for example this excellent review:
https://www.york.ac.uk/media/law/yorklawreview/vol1/COOMBS%20YLR%20SPRING%202020%20V1%20FINAL.pdf
This is the Star Wars Stormtrooper helmet case referred to in the
Bristow's article I quoted above, where they say the CJEU Cofemel
decision opened a can of worms for UK copyright.
However, that Stormtrooper muddle was not caused by European law. It
was entirely caused by domestic UK law. The only reference in the case
to European law was a question about whether the English courts should
have been hearing it at all.
The reason it's a can of worms is because it forces a rethink of the
previous UK muddle. Had the English court applied the uniform CJEU
test, "author's own intellectual creation", the muddle would have been eliminated. It would have lowered the test for copyright in
Stormtrooper helmets, so that it only required the author's own
intellectual creation, not the higher muddled UK standard.
On 2023-10-17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 13:52:13 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:24:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 17/10/2023 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2023 at 09:45:24 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>>> On 16/10/2023 23:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
An "unnatural" meaning of a word is a worrying concept in many ways. Are you
personally going to be responsible for telling courts when they have picked an
unnatural definition of a word?
We've had arguments here before over the meaning of words used in >>>>>>> certain Acts, and some have argued for extremely unnatural meanings. >>>>>>>
Perhaps you recall Mr Parker arguing that 'construct a cycle track' >>>>>>> meant not constructing one at all?
A good example; he was right and you were wrong.
Of course! How silly of me not to appreciate that 'construct' means >>>>> 'not construct'.
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of >>>> the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a >>>> grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily >>>> something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
I suggest you go back and look at the Auriol Gray thread, all several hundred
posts of it. And probably a similar number in unnm.
For the record, I'm sure Mark is right on this one, but you're making
me start to regret my curiosity as to why.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:52:13 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of >>> the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a
grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily >>> something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
No, it's in case law. Which, of course, Norman only accepts when the judges agree with him.
On 17/10/2023 12:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:26:12 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 17/10/2023 11:10, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 22:11:51 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 16/10/2023 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:10:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:Because some of them in context won't make any sense, some will even be >>>>> the wrong part of speech, and some won't be plain, literal or ordinary >>>>> but obscure and unnatural.
On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the
OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the >>>>>>>> legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable, >>>>>>> consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
Why do you think that some of the OED's definitions are unreasonable? >>>>>
I asked you, in the bit you decided to delete:
"What definitions from the OED do you say apply in the interpretation of >>>>> 'original work', if not 'new' and 'a product of labour'?"
I'll answer that question after you've answered mine. I note that you
skipped over that, previously.
But I have. What do you think the sentence just above your reply means?
It means you didn't answer my questions. Here they are again, separated into >> two lines:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in >> the OED?
Nope
On 17/10/2023 12:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suggest you spend some time looking at the history of copyright. You might >> find it educational.
I doubt it.
On 17/10/2023 16:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:52:13 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of >>>> the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a >>>> grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily >>>> something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
No, it's in case law. Which, of course, Norman only accepts when the judges >> agree with him.
Please cite it.
On 17/10/2023 16:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:52:13 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of >>>> the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a >>>> grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily >>>> something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
No, it's in case law. Which, of course, Norman only accepts when the judges >> agree with him.
Please cite it.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 16:49:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 16:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:52:13 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-17, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, what he actually pointed out was that "construct" in the context of >>>>> the legislation has much the same meaning as it does in, for example, a >>>>> grammatical construction, or a logical construction, and not necessarily >>>>> something which requires getting the diggers out.
Just out of curiosity (and to be clear, not because I think it has to
involve diggers), is there something in that statute or another
relevant one that defines "construct" for this purpose?
No, it's in case law. Which, of course, Norman only accepts when the judges >>> agree with him.
Please cite it.
It was mentioned in the thread previously referred to. If you really want
the precise cite, you can look it up just as easily as I can.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 15:04:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 17/10/2023 12:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:26:12 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 17/10/2023 11:10, Mark Goodge wrote:It means you didn't answer my questions. Here they are again, separated into
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 22:11:51 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:10:21 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:Because some of them in context won't make any sense, some will even be >>>>>> the wrong part of speech, and some won't be plain, literal or ordinary >>>>>> but obscure and unnatural.
On 16/10/2023 18:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in the
OED? Do you know which of them was intended by the authors of the >>>>>>>>> legislation?
The number isn't relevant. It's only those that are reasonable, >>>>>>>> consistent, plain, literal and ordinary.
Why do you think that some of the OED's definitions are unreasonable? >>>>>>
I asked you, in the bit you decided to delete:
"What definitions from the OED do you say apply in the interpretation of >>>>>> 'original work', if not 'new' and 'a product of labour'?"
I'll answer that question after you've answered mine. I note that you >>>>> skipped over that, previously.
But I have. What do you think the sentence just above your reply means? >>>
two lines:
Do you know how many definitions the words "original" and "work" have in
the OED?
Nope
Fine, I'll accept your admission that you're unable to answer my points.
Not quite. It is clear cut absolutely yours if the image was taken by an employee *directly* employed by you.
However, if you hire a professional photographer then the image
copyright remains with them or the company that they work for by default unless you agree otherwise in advance (or later buy out the copyright).
It makes no difference who owns the copyright provided that you only use
the image for the purpose it was taken. It only becomes a big issue if
the image has significant commercial value and you sell it elsewhere.
(such images are rare but not incredibly so)
Same applies to wedding photographers although most people are unaware -
they retain the image copyright even though you commissioned the work.
On 16/10/2023 22:36, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 19:10, Norman Wells wrote:
Why are you concerned just with cases that go to appeal? The lower
courts have to decide such things too where necessary.
I can see where your going wrong. Where a case does go to an upper
court then precedents are made from those interpretation and meaning
of words.
No, that's 'binding' precedents. All court decisions are precedents,
but the lower courts' decisions are not binding so they don't have to be followed. Nevertheless, it's not a free-for-all with all the lower
courts reinventing the wheel and deciding the same point willy-nilly and however they want if it comes before them. They will consider the
decisions in similar level courts and will attempt to reconcile their
own decisions with those of other courts however they can.
Sometimes those definitions change and don't follow your dictionary
definitions.
Then, in the words of Lord Simmons I've referred to previously, it is:
"a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise
of interpretation".
The lower courts generally follow those cases and often form part of
the argument in the lower court.
Binding precedents have to be followed. It's what the term means.
Hopefully you can see that blindly following dictionary definitions
isn't always very helpful when it comes to case law. Assuming you
understand the importance of case law?
The literal rule of Statutory interpretation is well established and has
to be followed.
Judges are not free to amend the law by changing theclear intention of Parliament expressed in the words it used.
On 09/10/2023 23:03, Simon Parker wrote:
On 09/10/2023 14:05, Norman Wells wrote:
I don't think that's a definition of 'original' either. Not
according to any of the dictionaries I've seen anyway.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean,
mean what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
You are repeating the mistake you frequently make.
This is uk.legal.moderated. Alt.English.Usage is over there ----->.
There's no mistake.
Laws are written in language to be understood, not
as a starting point for successive iterations like the game of changing
BLACK into WHITE in six easy steps, which is what has happened.
It's a fundamental principle of legal construction in the UK that laws
mean what they say in the ordinary English in which they are expressed.
They're supposed to tell people what they must not do, you see, without having to guess that they might some way down the line mean something
else entirely or even the opposite.
The word 'original' is that which is used in the UK legislation. It properly falls to be interpreted as that word is ordinarily used in the English language, for which the definitive works are what are called dictionaries.
It follows that, if the meaning of the word is in any doubt,
dictionaries will have to be consulted.
And if you do that you find
what is obvious anyway to anyone who speaks the language that it means essentially 'the first one', and that's all.
You will look in vain for any definition that refers to 'own
intellectual creation' which in any case has seemingly had to be derived
from 'originality' rather than 'original' which is the word used in the legislation. It's a bit of a giveaway that misinterpretation is at hand.
"The author's own intellectual creation" is a legal phrase which Tim
kindly placed in quotes, I believe, to indicate such.
You could do worse than obtain no more than the briefest understanding
of "The Infopaq Case" (Ed: do you see what I've done with that phrase
there?) [1] to clarify matters for you which will, it is hoped, assist
you in understanding where you have misdirected yourself.
Once you have grasped the point that "the author's own intellectual
creation" applies to all Berne Convention "works" under the European
acquis, then I would recommend moving on to SAS v World Programming in
which the courts helpfully explicated the "intellectual creation" test
thus:
"The essence of the term is that the person in question has exercised
expressive and creative choices in producing the work. The more
restricted the choices, the less likely it is that the product will be
the intellectual creation (or the expression of the intellectual
creation) of the person who produced it."
I trust this assists you in coming to a better, more accurate
understanding of the matter.
The Berne Convention actually says that 'the expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary,
scientific and artistic domain'.
There is no reference there either to 'own intellectual creation'. It
is 'every production'.
In your opinion. And if you were a senior judge that had been asked toAs always, I'm happy to help where I can but have been busy of late
and haven't been posting as much as I would have liked.
I am of course aware how the case law has developed. What you don't
seem able to comprehend is what a wrong path it has followed. 'Original'
no longer means what it says. And that's a fundamental misinterpretation.
On 10/10/2023 08:48, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/10/2023 23:03, Simon Parker wrote:
On 09/10/2023 14:05, Norman Wells wrote:
I don't think that's a definition of 'original' either. Not
according to any of the dictionaries I've seen anyway.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think laws should say what they mean,
mean what they say, and only be altered by legislators. Don't you?
You are repeating the mistake you frequently make.
This is uk.legal.moderated. Alt.English.Usage is over there ----->.
There's no mistake.
I'll confidently wager that you will repeat the mistake at least once
more before the end of this post...
Laws are written in language to be understood, not as a starting point
for successive iterations like the game of changing BLACK into WHITE
in six easy steps, which is what has happened.
In your opinion. Which isn't always correct; rather it is frequently mistaken.
It's a fundamental principle of legal construction in the UK that laws
mean what they say in the ordinary English in which they are expressed.
I invite you to quote section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 - a piece of legislation we considered here in ULM recently and then tell me where in
the UK you were, precisely, when you overheard "ordinary English" being expressed in the manner used in that legislation.
As this more than ably demonstrates, language changes. If it didn't, no
new dictionaries would have been produced since 1835.
They're supposed to tell people what they must not do, you see,
without having to guess that they might some way down the line mean
something else entirely or even the opposite.
The UK operates a common law system meaning the courts can develop the
law when a court of record clarifies the law thereby setting a precedent
for other courts to follow or apply in later cases.
The system neither asks for nor needs your agreement. It has been
working fine for centuries. If you don't like that system, you need to consider moving elsewhere as I am not aware of any plans to change it regardless of which government is in power.
The word 'original' is that which is used in the UK legislation. It
properly falls to be interpreted as that word is ordinarily used in
the English language, for which the definitive works are what are
called dictionaries.
And there's the mistake right there. That is not the test applied when determining the meaning of legislation, as has been explained to you
numerous times by multiple posters, myself included.
I've quoted them before but here are the words of paragraph 11-01 from 'Bennion on Statutory Interpretation', (8th edition (2020)).
<quote>
i) The primary indication of legislative intention is the legislative
text, read in context;
ii) Parliament is assumed to be a rational, reasonable and informed legislature pursuing a clear purpose in a coherent and principled
manner;
and
iii) The rules, principles, presumptions and canons which govern
statutory interpretation are aids to construing the legislative text.
<end quote>
Please point to the part where it says that dictionaries, and only dictionaries, must be used when determining legislative intention.
It follows that, if the meaning of the word is in any doubt,
dictionaries will have to be consulted.
It doesn't follow, at all. In case you missed it first time around
("the first time" in this post - it has been quoted several times previously), "The rules, principles, presumptions and canons which
govern statutory interpretation are aids to construing the legislative
text."
Rules - plural, not just the one, the literal rule, which you insist
must be used in all situations and at all times - are only part of the decision making arsenal at the disposal of the judges. There are "principles, presumptions and canons" too. But even then, such things
are merely "aids to construing the legislative text."
In short, the literal rule isn't a rule at all, it is an aid and by no
means the only one or even the most important one.
Unless you are going to claim that Bennion's is wrong?
You're not going to claim that, are you?
And if you do that you find what is obvious anyway to anyone who
speaks the language that it means essentially 'the first one', and
that's all.
You will look in vain for any definition that refers to 'own
intellectual creation' which in any case has seemingly had to be
derived from 'originality' rather than 'original' which is the word
used in the legislation. It's a bit of a giveaway that
misinterpretation is at hand.
I'm not a judge. I don't get to determine legislative intention.
So I
don't need to look, therefore your suggestion that I will be looking in
vain is mistaken.
The meaning of the phrase at issue has already been clarified in law.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kpq2mjFsi0tU3@mid.individual.net...
On 24/10/2023 12:07, Simon Parker wrote:
We are a common law jurisdiction. Judges are well within their
capabilities and rights to clarify the law with case law.
Clarify, not change.
But if it isn't going to change anything, then what exactly
is the point of clarification ?
On 17/10/2023 09:39, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/10/2023 22:36, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 19:10, Norman Wells wrote:
Why are you concerned just with cases that go to appeal? The lower
courts have to decide such things too where necessary.
I can see where your going wrong. Where a case does go to an upper
court then precedents are made from those interpretation and meaning
of words.
No, that's 'binding' precedents. All court decisions are precedents,
"All court decisions are precedents", you say?
"*All* court decisions"?
I have to assume you were absent when the hierarchy of courts and the doctrine of precedent was being discussed at law school as neither the Magistrates' Court nor the County Court have the power to set precedent
nor can they overrule precedent set in previous cases.
but the lower courts' decisions are not binding so they don't have to
be followed. Nevertheless, it's not a free-for-all with all the lower
courts reinventing the wheel and deciding the same point willy-nilly
and however they want if it comes before them. They will consider the
decisions in similar level courts and will attempt to reconcile their
own decisions with those of other courts however they can.
Sometimes those definitions change and don't follow your dictionary
definitions.
Then, in the words of Lord Simmons I've referred to previously, it is:
"a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin
disguise of interpretation".
Be that as it may, your understanding of Statutory Interpretation
remains mistaken.
Perhaps it will help if I provide two sample cases and post selected
snippets from the judgments to enable you to see how the process works,
so you can see that it is nothing like you think it is. (Free clue: in neither case is a dictionary consulted.)
The first case is Regina v Secretary of State for Health (Respondent) ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) (Appellant) [2003]
UKHL 13 [1]
The decision before the court was, as Lord Bingham of Cornhill explained
in paragraph [1] of the judgment:
"1. The issues in this appeal are whether live human embryos created by
cell nuclear replacement (CNR) fall outside the regulatory scope of the
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and whether licensing the creation of such embryos is prohibited by section 3(3)(d) of that Act."
In short, the case would turn on the precise meaning of word "embryo".
You believe that they need merely lookup the word "embryo" in a
dictionary, determine whether or not the CNR process creates something
that meets that definition and the judgment will follow therefrom.
But let us look at what they actually did.
For background, the appellant, acting on behalf of the pressure group Pro-Life, argued before the House of Lords that because CNR was a new
process it was not covered by the 1990 Act and therefore the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority did not have the authority under
the Act to licence research involving CNR. It pointed out
that in s1 of the Act an embryo regulated by the Act is defined as 'a
live human embryo where fertilisation is complete' and that CNR does not involve a process of fertilisation.
It should be noted, before continuing, that the House of Lords applied
the purposive approach to interpreting the Act and explained why they
had done so.
Selected text from the judgment with paragraph numbers shown:
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL
8. The basic task of the court is to ascertain and give effect to
the true meaning of what Parliament has said in the enactment to be construed. But that is not to say that attention should be confined and
a literal interpretation given to the particular provisions which give
rise to difficulty.
Such an approach not only encourages immense
prolixity in drafting
"Of course it is true that the words used, even in their literal sense,
are the primary, and ordinarily the most reliable, source of
interpreting the meaning of any writing: be it a statute, a contract, or anything else.
The literal rule of Statutory interpretation is well established and
has to be followed.
Oh no it doesn't.
Judges are not free to amend the law by changing theclear intention of Parliament expressed in the words it used.
We are a common law jurisdiction. Judges are well within their
capabilities and rights to clarify the law with case law.
On 24/10/2023 12:07, Simon Parker wrote:
On 17/10/2023 09:39, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/10/2023 22:36, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/10/2023 19:10, Norman Wells wrote:
Why are you concerned just with cases that go to appeal? The lower
courts have to decide such things too where necessary.
I can see where your going wrong. Where a case does go to an upper
court then precedents are made from those interpretation and meaning
of words.
No, that's 'binding' precedents. All court decisions are precedents,
"All court decisions are precedents", you say?
"*All* court decisions"?
Yes, of course. The word precedent simply means coming before.
I have to assume you were absent when the hierarchy of courts and the
doctrine of precedent was being discussed at law school as neither the
Magistrates' Court nor the County Court have the power to set precedent
nor can they overrule precedent set in previous cases.
You're confusing 'precedents' with 'binding precedents'. Not all
precedents are binding, only those from higher courts, but they are precedents nevertheless.
Even the Supreme Court, ie the highest court in the land that isn't
bound by anything, 'relies on precedents — that is, earlier laws or decisions that provide some example or rule to guide them in the case
they're actually deciding'.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedent#:~:text=A%20precedent%20is%20something%20that,case%20they're%20actually%20deciding.
but the lower courts' decisions are not binding so they don't have to
be followed. Nevertheless, it's not a free-for-all with all the lower
courts reinventing the wheel and deciding the same point willy-nilly
and however they want if it comes before them. They will consider the
decisions in similar level courts and will attempt to reconcile their
own decisions with those of other courts however they can.
Sometimes those definitions change and don't follow your dictionary
definitions.
Then, in the words of Lord Simmons I've referred to previously, it is:
"a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin
disguise of interpretation".
Be that as it may, your understanding of Statutory Interpretation
remains mistaken.
Absolutely not.
Perhaps it will help if I provide two sample cases and post selected
snippets from the judgments to enable you to see how the process works,
so you can see that it is nothing like you think it is. (Free clue: in
neither case is a dictionary consulted.)
The first case is Regina v Secretary of State for Health (Respondent) ex
parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) (Appellant) [2003]
UKHL 13 [1]
The decision before the court was, as Lord Bingham of Cornhill explained
in paragraph [1] of the judgment:
"1. The issues in this appeal are whether live human embryos created by
cell nuclear replacement (CNR) fall outside the regulatory scope of the
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and whether licensing the
creation of such embryos is prohibited by section 3(3)(d) of that Act."
In short, the case would turn on the precise meaning of word "embryo".
You believe that they need merely lookup the word "embryo" in a
dictionary, determine whether or not the CNR process creates something
that meets that definition and the judgment will follow therefrom.
No, the Act can be its own dictionary, and it goes to the trouble of
defining what it means by 'embryo' in its very first Section.
There is no need or justification to look elsewhere. If an Act said
'the term hippopotamus as used herein means a red telephone' then it
means what it says regardless of any external sources.
But let us look at what they actually did.
For background, the appellant, acting on behalf of the pressure group
Pro-Life, argued before the House of Lords that because CNR was a new
process it was not covered by the 1990 Act and therefore the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Authority did not have the authority under
the Act to licence research involving CNR. It pointed out
that in s1 of the Act an embryo regulated by the Act is defined as 'a
live human embryo where fertilisation is complete' and that CNR does not
involve a process of fertilisation.
Well, that's got nothing to do with the definition of 'embryo' at all
but rather with the factual matter of whether fertilisation had taken
place. That's not a matter of interpretation at all.
On 24/10/2023 12:07, Simon Parker wrote:
We are a common law jurisdiction. Judges are well within their
capabilities and rights to clarify the law with case law.
Clarify, not change.
On 24/10/2023 23:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpq2mjFsi0tU3@mid.individual.net...
On 24/10/2023 12:07, Simon Parker wrote:
We are a common law jurisdiction. Judges are well within their
capabilities and rights to clarify the law with case law.
Clarify, not change.
But if it isn't going to change anything, then what exactly
is the point of clarification ?
To clarify, obviously. For the avoidance of doubt.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kps2uaFascfU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/10/2023 23:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpq2mjFsi0tU3@mid.individual.net...
On 24/10/2023 12:07, Simon Parker wrote:
We are a common law jurisdiction. Judges are well within their
capabilities and rights to clarify the law with case law.
Clarify, not change.
But if it isn't going to change anything, then what exactly
is the point of clarification ?
To clarify, obviously. For the avoidance of doubt.
So there was doubt before, in the interpretion of a particular law,
which no longer exists following clarification.
And you don't regard that, as a change ?
I've said all along that where the Literal Rule produces a difficulty
you can go on to other rules of interpretation. But you can't where it doesn't.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 15:29:39 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
I've said all along that where the Literal Rule produces a difficulty
you can go on to other rules of interpretation. But you can't where it
doesn't.
Prior to Brexit, it often happened that the literal rule did indeed
produce a difficulty. A literal reading of the UK words clashed with EU
law.
In that case, back in 1972 the UK Parliament had said what the courts
should do.
Quote:
"The European Communities Act 1972 was the piece of
legislation that brought the UK into the Europe Union:
**it gives EU law supremacy over UK national law.**
A large amount of EU law effective in the UK currently
relies on the 1972 Act."
https://tinyurl.com/2s7p22z9 (Institute for Government)
This is the reason why the courts often applied a purposive construction >instead of a literal one. They had been instructed by the UK Parliament
to treat EU law as supreme. So they interpreted UK laws in a way that
would achieve that purpose.
That's how the UK courts arrived at "the author's own intellectual
creation".
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 15:29:39 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
I've said all along that where the Literal Rule produces a difficulty
you can go on to other rules of interpretation. But you can't where it
doesn't.
Prior to Brexit, it often happened that the literal rule did indeed
produce a difficulty. A literal reading of the UK words clashed with EU
law.
In that case, back in 1972 the UK Parliament had said what the courts
should do.
Quote:
"The European Communities Act 1972 was the piece of
legislation that brought the UK into the Europe Union:
**it gives EU law supremacy over UK national law.**
A large amount of EU law effective in the UK currently
relies on the 1972 Act."
https://tinyurl.com/2s7p22z9 (Institute for Government)
This is the reason why the courts often applied a purposive construction instead of a literal one. They had been instructed by the UK Parliament
to treat EU law as supreme. So they interpreted UK laws in a way that
would achieve that purpose.
That's how the UK courts arrived at "the author's own intellectual
creation".
So what about the position after Brexit? You might think we are no
longer constrained to follow EU law. The UK parliament and Supreme
Court are free to do what they want.
Well, yes, that's right. But in many areas, they haven't yet taken
advantage of that freedom.
Meanwhile, the UK Parliament has provided that the same rules should
continue to apply after Brexit, unless and until changed.
Further quote, following on from the one above:
"The [European Communities] Act is repealed by the EU
Withdrawal Act 2018 although in reality this is more
of a 'copy and paste' act that transfers EU regulation
and law onto the UK statute book."
Pending any change, expect to hear more court decisions which apply "the author's own intellectual creation".
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 15:08:25 +0100, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 15:29:39 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
I've said all along that where the Literal Rule produces a difficulty
you can go on to other rules of interpretation. But you can't where it
doesn't.
Prior to Brexit, it often happened that the literal rule did indeed
produce a difficulty. A literal reading of the UK words clashed with EU
law.
In that case, back in 1972 the UK Parliament had said what the courts
should do.
Quote:
"The European Communities Act 1972 was the piece of
legislation that brought the UK into the Europe Union:
**it gives EU law supremacy over UK national law.**
A large amount of EU law effective in the UK currently
relies on the 1972 Act."
https://tinyurl.com/2s7p22z9 (Institute for Government)
This is the reason why the courts often applied a purposive construction
instead of a literal one. They had been instructed by the UK Parliament
to treat EU law as supreme. So they interpreted UK laws in a way that
would achieve that purpose.
And, of course, the reason why the government could leave it to the courts
is because the UK (or, at least, England and Wales) has a common law jurisdiction. If we did not, then parliament would have had to painstakingly amend all of UK law which conflicted with EU law so as to remove the conflict. I'm not convinced that would have been better.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 51:34:38 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,038 |
| Posted today: | 1 |