According to the BBC, a row has broken out over the ownership of a series of tapes allegedly featuring the late Princess Diana talking candidly about her marital problems. The tapes were made during lessons on public speaking that she took with voice-coach Peter Settelen and were seized during raids on the house of Paul Burrell – the Princess’ former butler. Settelen has issued an ultimatum to the police, saying that if the tapes are not returned to him by Wednesday he will commence legal proceedings. However, Diana’s family, headed by Earl Spencer, is arguing that the tapes belong to it and is seeking to have them destroyed.

The IPKat notes that the issue of who owns the copyright in the tapes is highly complex. Ordinarily, although the person featured speaking on a video (or his or her heirs) would own the copyright in the literary work comprised of the words he or she says and the dramatic work comprised of any actions that he or she performs while being recorded. However, the person who set up the video camera would own the copyright in the actual recordings. Where the work is made in the course of employment, copyright will vest in the employer. However, where the recording is made during freelance employment such as this seems to be, the copyright will remain with the author unless there is a provision in the contract of employment to the contrary.

Elocution lessons here and here
Advice on public speaking here and here

CANDID CAMERA COPYRIGHT CONUNDRUM <strong>CANDID CAMERA COPYRIGHT CONUNDRUM</strong> Reviewed by Unknown on Monday, November 03, 2003 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. I agree that they should destroy Princess Diana's public speaking tapes.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.