tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8472201649521435053..comments2024-03-29T06:00:27.896+00:00Comments on The IPKat: A film about Martin Luther King without King's actual words: is it really a copyright problem?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76408583551539178052015-03-17T09:52:34.211+00:002015-03-17T09:52:34.211+00:00Although both US and UK law wouldn't be agains...Although both US and UK law wouldn't be against reproduction of the extracts, <i>original speeches can't be replaced</i>. And I agree with Anon here.M. Ibarrahttp://copyrightcollectionsltd.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72109917134202402862015-01-13T09:40:27.507+00:002015-01-13T09:40:27.507+00:00@Ben: I guess that under 'old' s30 when ad...@Ben: I guess that under 'old' s30 when advising clients one had always to bear in mind the restrictive approach taken in cases like Ashdown. The Clockwork Orange and Pro Sieben cases pushed the exception to the extremes of what was reasonably possible under the restrictive language of the provision.<br /><br />@Anonymous: yes, sure. I guess that in the end they decided that this risk was not worth taking! Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84465525086847706112015-01-12T20:54:24.016+00:002015-01-12T20:54:24.016+00:00Perhspa it is not copyright per se, but the possib...Perhspa it is not copyright per se, but the possibility of a law suit that is the problem?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8225689956442223092015-01-12T14:43:49.711+00:002015-01-12T14:43:49.711+00:00In the UK I always struggle to understand how case...In the UK I always struggle to understand how cases such as Ashdown v Telegraph can sit alongside the decision of the Court of Appeal in Pro Sieben Mediia v Carlton TV [1999] FSR 610 where the Court of Appeal, overturning Laddie J's decision, confirmed that criticism or review as a concept did not just require criticism or review of the work being copied, but could also cover the social or moral implications of the work and ideas found within it. <br /><br />The decision in the 'Clockwork Orange' case in 1994 (Time Warner v Channel 4) I do get even if 40% of the programme made about the controversial film was taken from the (copyrighted) film which director Stanley Kubrick had self banned. I struggle a bit with the decision in the 'Scientology' case, Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 1 AER 1023, but sort of get the idea that fair dealing defence: can be used for criticism of the substance of a work, not just it's literary merit.<br /><br />But Ashdown says that the publication of the memorandum of the meeting between Ashdown and Blair was not for criticism of "the work" but rather of the political events described/ recorded therein, and therefore the defence did not apply. Isn't this quite the opposite of the decision in Pro Sieben - even if there the Court of Appeal did say then defences must be brought within the Act.<br />Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com