However, it may be and in most cases is probably still copyrighted (with some exceptions such as US government content). Archiving is probably OK in most cases. Making that archive available to the public (e.g. Wayback Machine) is something that gets a blind eye turned on but there's probably not much legal backing for that--and which, to date, pretty much no one has wanted to try to build a legal case around.
The BL is not after my site specifically. It is after all sites it "sees" as "UK sites". All I am asking is a definition of what is a UK site.
I am asking for such a definition not because I object to archiving but because placement of my site into a collection of "UK sites" is an obvious mis-classification.
It's not legal in the UK to make a copy of a website except if you're a deposit library and the website fails within the strictures of the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003.
But, under that act, if it's hosted in the UK then BL can make a copy (for access in person by someone visiting the physical library).
UK law is pretty draconian, in my personal opinion, when it comes to copyright.
In the UK most copies are outlawed. There are explicit exceptions for things like internet caches and the transient copies made by routers. The fact the exceptions are needed shows how restrictive the law is.
Well, I'm from Germany and it doesn't sound wrong to me. And in Germany we don't even have anglo-saxon law, but napoleonic laws (sample cases matter less, written law text matters more, for one big difference). We also don't have "copyright" at all. We have a "Urheberrecht", which is very similar, but also very different in details.
One of the things is: if a person creates something with a certain creativity level (I'm sure "hello world" programs don't count) then the work has automatically "Urheberrecht". There never was the need to register it, not even in history (like in the US, the origin of the "(C) xxxx by yyyy" markers). You also don't need to write any sentence at all into your works. What exactly is "certain creativity level" isn't in the law, that's on a judge in case of dispute. Also data bases and things generated by machines aren't covered.
(There are more ways you can get protection, e.g. if something is a computer program, or if something is art.)
And while this this can be seen draconian, then non-draconianess comes from exceptions. Generally private people are allowed to make one copy for their personal usage.
IANAL and the usual jadda jadda --- this is another difference between anglo-saxon and napoleonic right: in napoleonic right one doesn't have to state the obvious for fear of damages rulings ... oh, and technically we don't have napoleonic right in Germany either, as usual it's more complicated ... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtskreis
And yet, UK and DE were together with many other countries in the EU. And so a lot of laws in the agricultural and trade realms are similar. Copying (and selling) stuff is IMHO trade related. So it doesn't wonder me at all that in practice the have a similar outcome despite being in totally different law systems.
But it's still bizarre for a legacy entity like a nation state to presume that it can identify an internet phenomenon without first explaining what it even means when declaring its intention to do so.
However, it may be and in most cases is probably still copyrighted (with some exceptions such as US government content). Archiving is probably OK in most cases. Making that archive available to the public (e.g. Wayback Machine) is something that gets a blind eye turned on but there's probably not much legal backing for that--and which, to date, pretty much no one has wanted to try to build a legal case around.
The BL is not after my site specifically. It is after all sites it "sees" as "UK sites". All I am asking is a definition of what is a UK site.
I am asking for such a definition not because I object to archiving but because placement of my site into a collection of "UK sites" is an obvious mis-classification.
It's not legal in the UK to make a copy of a website except if you're a deposit library and the website fails within the strictures of the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003.
But, under that act, if it's hosted in the UK then BL can make a copy (for access in person by someone visiting the physical library).
UK law is pretty draconian, in my personal opinion, when it comes to copyright.
> It's not legal in the UK to make a copy of a website except if [...]
Can you cite a source for this? It sounds wrong to me.
This covers what you can legally do in regards to copyrighted works:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/...
In the UK most copies are outlawed. There are explicit exceptions for things like internet caches and the transient copies made by routers. The fact the exceptions are needed shows how restrictive the law is.
Well, I'm from Germany and it doesn't sound wrong to me. And in Germany we don't even have anglo-saxon law, but napoleonic laws (sample cases matter less, written law text matters more, for one big difference). We also don't have "copyright" at all. We have a "Urheberrecht", which is very similar, but also very different in details.
One of the things is: if a person creates something with a certain creativity level (I'm sure "hello world" programs don't count) then the work has automatically "Urheberrecht". There never was the need to register it, not even in history (like in the US, the origin of the "(C) xxxx by yyyy" markers). You also don't need to write any sentence at all into your works. What exactly is "certain creativity level" isn't in the law, that's on a judge in case of dispute. Also data bases and things generated by machines aren't covered.
And you automatically have "Urheberrecht" of it. And so automatically others aren't allowed to copy your work! https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__2.html
(There are more ways you can get protection, e.g. if something is a computer program, or if something is art.)
And while this this can be seen draconian, then non-draconianess comes from exceptions. Generally private people are allowed to make one copy for their personal usage.
IANAL and the usual jadda jadda --- this is another difference between anglo-saxon and napoleonic right: in napoleonic right one doesn't have to state the obvious for fear of damages rulings ... oh, and technically we don't have napoleonic right in Germany either, as usual it's more complicated ... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtskreis
And yet, UK and DE were together with many other countries in the EU. And so a lot of laws in the agricultural and trade realms are similar. Copying (and selling) stuff is IMHO trade related. So it doesn't wonder me at all that in practice the have a similar outcome despite being in totally different law systems.
1 reply →
There are more legal allowances than that.
But yes, it's an allowlist rather than a reasonableness test. The US 4 point test is somewhat decent in this regard.
Of course that's true.
But it's still bizarre for a legacy entity like a nation state to presume that it can identify an internet phenomenon without first explaining what it even means when declaring its intention to do so.
What's a "legacy entity"?