Campaign says measures to remove copyright restrictions on datasets could be easily circumvented

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has expressed concern that the measures to remove copyright restrictions on datasets in the Protection of Freedoms Bill could be easily circumvented and has called for copyright to be removed on all information released under the FOI Act, except material which a public authority is commercially exploiting.

The Campaign's concerns are set out in a submission to the Commons' committee dealing with the Protection of Freedoms Bill. It follows the Campaign's oral evidence to the Committee on 24 March 2011. You can watch the evidence session here or read a transcript here.

Evidence to Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee

The Information Commissioner and Campaign for Freedom of Information gave oral evidence to the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee on 24 March 2011. You can watch a recording of the evidence session here.

A note submitted to the Committee setting out the Campaign's views on the Bill is available here. The Information Commissioner's written evidence to the Committee is here.

Campaign welcomes FOI changes in Protection of Freedoms Bill but calls for them to be extended

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has welcomed the changes to the Freedom of Information Act set out in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, published today.

Requiring public authorities to publish data sets proactively, under the ‘publication schemes’ that all authorities are required to have under the Act, was a positive step, the Campaign said. It was also helpful that when applying for datasets applicants would be entitled to specify that they be released in a reusable electronic format. The Campaign said that should prevent authorities deliberately turning a spreadsheet into a pdf, before releasing it, to stop requesters running their own analyses of the spreadsheet itself.

However, the Campaign said the Act’s provisions on the form in which information should be released needed further improvements, to allow requesters to specify that they wanted photocopies of original documents. At present, requesters can only express preference between obtaining information in hard copy or electronic form or inspecting records but are not entitled to specify that they want photocopies of actual correspondence or documents.

The new Bill also seeks to prevent authorities invoking copyright to prevent requesters republishing datasets released under the Act, where the authority is the copyright holder. The Campaign said this was a positive step which should be extended beyond datasets. Authorities frequently insist that requesters apply to them for a copyright license to reproduce information about the authorities’ own policies and performance. It said this was an unnecessary restriction which obstructs the use of information which has no commercial value to the authorities themselves.

The Campaign also welcomed the decision to bring companies that are jointly owned by several public authorities under the Act.

Sarah Palin 1- Gawker 0: Gawker Ordered To Remove Leaked Excerpts

Gawker published unauthorized leaked excerpts from Sarah Palin's new book "America By Heart" and when asked to remove those pages Gawker decided instead to recommend Palin speak to her lawyers.

Gawker titled a post on Thursday with "Sarah Palin is Mad at Us for Leaking Pages From Her Book" and sent a message to "Sarah" .

[Sarah: If you're reading this—and if you are, welcome!—you may want to take a moment to familiarize yourself with the law. Try starting here or here. Or skip the totally boring reading and call one of your lawyers. They'll walk you through it.]

Palin's publisher, HarperCollins, did exactly that and their lawyers filed a lawsuit in Federal court against Gawker Media asking that Gawker be banned from further "copyright infringement" as well as seeking financial damages.

The Politico reports that the federal judge ordered Gawker to take the excerpts down, which now they have, until a hearing which is scheduled for November 30, 2010.

A two-page order signed Saturday by U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa, who sits in Manhattan, says: “Gawker is temporarily retrained and enjoined from continuing to distribute, publish or otherwise transmit pages" of the book.

See the order here.

"America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag" will be released November 23, 2010.


Fair use under copyright law:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

Perhaps Gawker Media should have consulted with their own attorneys before violating the copyright infringement laws instead of trying to be smart asses and telling Palin to consult hers.

They might have avoided this type of humiliation.

More at CBS.

You can get a sneak peak from the author herself at Palin's Facebook page here.

.

Open Government Licence enables re-use of information

The National Archives
30 September 2010

The National Archives is today launching a new Open Government Licence, which makes it faster and easier than ever before to re-use public sector information.

The UK Open Government Licence is a key element of the Government's commitment to greater transparency. It provides a single set of terms and conditions for anyone wishing to use or license government information and removes some of the existing barriers to re-use.

Developers and entrepreneurs wishing to use government data to create new websites and applications will no longer need to register or formally apply for permission to re-use the data. The new licence is interoperable with other internationally recognised licensing models, such as Creative Commons.

Bringing information to life

Commenting on the launch of the new licence, Lord McNally, Minister for The National Archives and Public Sector Information, said: 'The National Archives isn't simply a repository of our nation's history, its task is to bring information to life, make it accessible and enable its re-use. This innovative licence gives everyone the opportunity to create products and services which benefit society.'

The licence covers a broad range of public sector information, including Crown Copyright, databases and source codes and can be used across the entire public sector.  It is published today in a machine-readable format on the Information management section of The National Archives website.

To support the UK Open Government Licence, The National Archives has developed the UK Government Licensing Framework which sets out the Government's overall policy on licensing and the re-use of public sector information.

See also:
http://data.gov.uk/blog/new-open-government-license

Resolution Without Resolution

One of the more interesting aspects of Google's recent settlement of a lawsuit by book authors alleging vast copyright infringement (see coverage of the settlement in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times) was the absolute refusal by Google to publicly acknowledge the settlement resolved any of the key copyright issues at stake.

It is common, of course, for parties in a settlement to refuse to admit liability, but Google really seems to have taken it up a notch. Consider the following quote from the New York Times, relaying Google's position on the issue at the heart of the dispute:

“There is no acknowledgment that we had to have permissions to scan or show snippets,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, said in an interview.

They settled, Google says, solely for business reasons. Few believe it, and I personally think it rings kind of hollow, given the concessions in the settlement. Which goes to show you, even in the age of spin, you have to ground your message in some sort of reality for it to stick. Or, put another way, you bend the truth too much, it breaks.

At another level, I think the settlement is an example of the slow chipping away at Google's hegemony. Like Microsoft a decade before them, Google seemed to have assumed an air of superiority when it comes to legal issues – as if they were, if not above the law, then perhaps too smart to be bound by its rather antiquated concepts. Copyright is a prime example, but look also at privacy issues, censorship in China, and all of the other high-profile legal debates Google has found itself at the center of these days.

Eventually, I think, the law catches up with even the most arrogant… if there are opposing parties willing to go the distance. With that in mind, pay close attention to Google’s continuing case with Viacom over the posting of videos on the YouTube website. Note this comment by Michael Fricklas of Viacom, again from the Times post:

“The publisher agreement is, at last, acceptance of what’s obvious to everyone but Google,” said Michael Fricklas, general counsel of Viacom. “Copying and distributing copyrighted works requires permission from the copyright owner."

If Viacom is indeed willing to press on with its claims – making a disciplined, compelling case both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion – you’ll begin to see further weakening in Google’s position. And like Microsoft before them, they’ll begin to realize that you may think you're smarter than the law, but you still have to obey it.