CLA launches new Second Extract Permissions Service

A couple of weeks ago this blogger received a media release that somehow slipped to the bottom to his pile of unattended emails and remained there till he found it again today. The title "CLA launches new time-saving permissions service for universities: New Second Extract Permissions Service available now" pretty well gives the game away. Anyway, the release reads, in relevant part, as follows:

CLA (The Copyright Licensing Agency [in the UK]) is launching a new service to allow universities to buy rights instantly online. This is the first time that universities have been able to purchase additional rights from CLA immediately and it is expected to save them thousands of hours each year on administration.

The new ‘Second Extract Permissions Service’ enables universities to buy rights instantly when they need to copy more than is allowed under the CLA Higher Education Licence.

A university with the licence can currently copy a limited extract from a published work - for example a single chapter or 5% of the whole text. Until now, if a university wanted to use more content they would contact the publisher or another agent to purchase permission, which can be a time-consuming process. The new Second Extract Permissions Service will speed up the process and reduce administration costs.

Over 100 major publishers are signed up to the service - representing the majority of the millions of pages copied each year in higher education.

Some universities are using a beta version but all are invited to pre-register now online ahead of an August rollout at http://he.cla.co.uk/second-extract.

This blogger has taken a brief look at the service and would be interested to hear from those who are either expecting to use it or to derive income from it. His favourite bit is the line that reads "the service is optional and there is no charge if you don’t use it".

The CopyKat - Bently blocked in bizarre bite sized ball battle

Research from the Motion Picture Association Of America (MPAA) claims that web-blocking in the UK is proving a substantial deterrent to online piracy - even where proxy sites enable users to access blocked services. An internal MPAA report , seen by Torrentfreak, shows that that visits to infringing sites UK sites that had been blocked declined by more than 90% in total during the measurement period or by 74.5% when proxy sites are included. The research is referenced in a report being prepared for the Australian government which is currently considering new anti-piracy measures, including web-blocking. Though Torrentfreak wonders if the fact the MPAA is conducting research of this kind suggests that it is planning on pushing for web-blocking in the US once again.

And UK Culture Secretary Sajid Javid has warned internet search engine companies legislation could be introduced if they do not make "real progress" in clamping down on links to pirate websites. He told the Annual General Meeting of the record label's trade association the BPI that he and Business Secretary Vince Cable had written to leading firms such as Google requesting they work with record firms in finding a way to stop giving easy access to sites which violate copyright saying  " No industry - and no Government - can let this level of infringement continue on such a massive, industrial scale" noting that without enforceable copyright there would be “no A&R, no recording studios, no producers, no session musicians, no publicity, no artwork. None of the vital ingredients that take the music created made by talented artists and turn it into something the whole world can enjoy. It’s what our past success was built on, and it’s what our future success depends on” adding "Copyright infringement is theft, pure and simple".

"The next generation of wars over knowledge, culture, drawings, information, and data is just around the corner, and it’s going to get much uglier with more stakes involved on all sides. We have gotten people elected to parliaments (and stayed there) on the conflict just as it stands now. As this divide deepens, and nothing suggests it won’t, then people will start to pay more attention. And maybe, just maybe, that will be the beginning of the end of these immoral and deeply unjust monopolies known as copyrights and patents." An interesting article. 

The UK's Copyright Licensing Agency and the China's Written Works Copyright Society have signed an agreement which will, for the first time, place numerous Chinese written works in the British market, including books, articles in newspapers and magazines and academic papers. Yan Xiaohong, deputy chief of the Chinese National Copyright Administration, said the agreement marks a milestone in copyright protection for Chinese works in overseas markets saying "It will encourage more Chinese writers and publishers to produce more high-quality copyright works appealing to foreigners, and guarantee their economic benefits" adding "Also, it will serve as a trailblazer for more agreements of its kind to be signed with copyright collective management agencies in other countries and regions of the world. Eventually, this kind of cooperation will boost Chinese cultural exports." The CWWCS is the only valid organization approved by the National Copyright Administration to collectively manage and operate copyright in China. Richard Mollet, chair of the UK Publisher's Association and the UK Alliance for Intellectual Property, and UK Minister for Intellectual Property Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe also attended the signing ceremony.

And finally ..... and with echoes of Lawrence Lessig's tussle with Liberation Music over the use of a clip of a Phoenix track in a presentation on cultural and technological innovation - comes news that Professor Lionel Bently has similarly had a video temoved from YouTube - because the English Football Association Premier League claimed that it infringed their copyrights. TechDirt reports that the clip was used by Professor Bently at the Institute for Information Law (IViR) July Information Influx event, which included a panel discussion on "Who Owns the World Cup?" discussing the very question of copyright and sports clips.

It is reported (though this Kat can't confirm) that Professor Bently was arguing in favour of better copyright protection for sporting events - an area where the FAPL have struggled in their battle to prevent unauthorised broadcasts with courts finding that only certain elements of live match transmisisons protectable (logos, anthems and clips from past matches). In the Lessig case, Liberation Music reached a settlement with Lessig. The settlement included an admission that Lessig had the right to use a track by the band Phoenix, and Liberation admitted Lessig's use of the song was protected by fair use - and Liberation agreed to adopt new policies around issuing takedown notices. I wonder if, in the different regime of fair dealing, and with the newly revised S30A "quotation" exception not yet in place in the UK (due 1st October 2014 I believe), the Premier League will take the same approach in the UK - or maybe just apply some common sense? Whatever the FAPL do or don't do, the phrase that most springs to my mind (and others it must be said) is 'own goal'.  

There is more on this story on the Kluwer Copyright Blog  "Premier League claims copyright on football matches shown in copyright debat"  by Thomas Margoni, Institute for Information Law (IViR)

CLA goes fishing in Brighton, makes a big catch

Brighton: from seaside to ©-side

While many good folk have been enjoying the summer on the beaches, in the bars or just plain glued to the telly,  the UK's Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd has opted for an adventure sport: hunting local authorities.  During what must presumably be the open season, the CLA caught no fewer than 20 of them.  Like the fisherman who, having caught his fish, sportingly extracts the hook and tosses the fish back, the CLA catches its councils, extracts a licence and then leaves them to get on with their municipal duties.

According to a recent media release from the CLA which can also be found on its website, quoted in relevant part:

" ... Twenty new councils have taken a copyright licence following legal action by CLA against one of Britain’s largest city councils.

Earlier this year (April 2013), Brighton & Hove City Council agreed to pay CLA an undisclosed sum to cover legal costs and retrospective licence fees as well as agreeing to take a licence for the future. Lawyers acting for Brighton & Hove had originally told CLA that it was not at risk of copyright infringement as it operated a ‘no copying’ policy, but evidence gathered by CLA showed that the policy had not worked and infringement was taking place [This raises another sensitive issue: local authorities, like many other public and private sector employers, have rules which employees are expected to observe and which may even be explicitly incorporated into their contracts of employment. Breach of a 'no copying' policy is generally executed by humans and not by invading hordes of chimpanzees, so it is likely that such breaches will also breach the terms of the copier's contract of employment.  This blogger isn't aware of any employer taking legal action against an employee whose copying makes it vicariously liable. If indeed this doesn't happen (can readers advise?), are such clauses in contracts of employment a bit of a waste of time? They don't seem to be a substitute for proper copyright guidance as to what employees can or can't do under a CLA licence, by statute or in any other way].

Following the settlement with Brighton & Hove, five councils that had previously cancelled their licence have contacted CLA following internal reviews that showed they were at risk of copyright infringement – and consequential legal action.

Martin Delaney, CLA’s Legal Director said: “I am pleased to see that councils are recognising their legal requirement for a CLA licence. This will help us to protect the UK creative industries, worth more than £36.2 billion to the UK economy”.

Mr. Delaney emphasised CLA’s continuing determination to investigate reports of copyright infringement and pursue councils that do not have a licence, but should have one:

“All of CLA’s licensed councils are surveyed on a rolling program and our data shows that copying is widespread during the course of day-to-day activities. There is no reason to doubt that these practices occur in all of the remaining unlicensed local authorities as well.”

CLA monitors councils where it is believed that copyright infringement is taking place and investigates reports of copyright infringement in the workplace provided by individuals. If a council is found to be infringing copyright, then in some cases, its officers and employees can be held individually liable".

COPYKAT THAT CAPTAIN

Outdoor movie nights in Hintonburg, Canada, have been cancelled indefinitely after the discovery that the local community association has been ignoring copyright for the past four years. Now the Hintonburg Community Association is facing a bill for just over $2,000 after not paying licensing fees for nine movies they’ve shown at outdoor public screenings since 2009. Audio Ciné Films, a company that represents the film rights of major movie studios in Canada, informed the HCA three weeks ago that their public screenings were infringing. “They caught wind that we were showing them,” said Jeff Leiper, president of the HCA. “And now that we’re on their radar we are going to have pay the licensing fee moving forward.”

Now to music publishing – Warner/Chappell say that the Hoklo (Taiwanese) version of the theme song from the movie adaptation of Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables infringes their copyright. Wu Yi-cheng  and Wang Hsi-wen, who adapted the song by re-writing the lyrics and altering the music, said that they had tried to ask Warner/Chappell for the rights to use the song, but did not get a reply. The Hoklo version was used at a mass political rally in Taiwan attended by 200,000 people demanding that the military reveal the truth about the death of an army corporal who allegedly died from abuse while doing his military service – and then posted online. Having now removed the new song’s sheet music from the web, it seems that the authors may have a partial defence in Taiwanese law: According the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, Articles 44 through to  65 of the Copyright Act provide that whilst the modification of music or lyrics must first be consented to by the original copyright owner,  if such consent cannot be obtained, then the modification should be judged by the standard of whether it was “usage within reason” with the opinion that  the fact the music was at a public rally meant  it could fall under Article 55 of the Act  - it was used in the public interest - and thus may well be  “usage within reason.” However any further uses would be judged on whether it was being used for commercial gain or in an attempt to profit from its distribution – and whether it had impacted on the rights of the copyright owner. Any Taiwanese layers out there who would care to add to this please do post a comment?

After the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) successfully took legal action against Brighton & Hove City Council, one of Britain's largest city councils, 20 more local authorities have signed up for a copyright licence. However, 140 out of 450 UK councils are still unlicensed. The CLA's legal director Martin Delaney said: "I am pleased to see that councils are recognising their legal requirement for a CLA licence" but added: "Our data [on licensed councils] shows that copying is widespread during the course of day-to-day activities. There is no reason to doubt that these practices occur in all of the remaining unlicensed local authorities as well." And in the USA, auditors have discovered that for 27 different pieces of commercial software reviewed by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the Inland Revenue Service (IRS)  was only able to provide proper licenses for three of them. In its official response to the audit report the IRS agreed with the criticisms and accepted six recommendations for how to better manage and licence software use.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Robin Thicke (along with Pharrell Williams and T.I.) has filed a suit in federal court in California against both the family of Marvin Gaye and a publishing company that holds the rights to some of Funkadelic’s compositions. The reason? Both of those parties have claimed that “Blurred Lines” – THE party anthem of 2013 - borrows from their own work, and thus they should be entitled to royalties. The Gaye family’s claim is "especially absurd", as they claim that “Blurred Lines” feels and sounds the same as Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up” and that, according to the suit, “the Gaye defendants are claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work.” Meanwhile, Bridgeport Music says that “Blurred Lines” sounds too much like Funkadelic’s “Sexy Ways.” Both parties have threatened litigation if they aren’t paid, which is why Thicke, Williams, and T.I. have filed suit - in order to get a prompt and clear decision - hopefully in their favour.

Thom Yorke's Atoms For Peace have already pulled their latest album from Spotify and other streaming services, and now musician Zoë Keating has revealed that she earned just $808 from 201,412 Spotify streams of tracks from two of her older releases in the first half of 2013. That's according to figures published by the cellist as a Google Doc. The Guardian newspaper has much more - and the spreadsheet was Keating's latest attempt to shed more light on the issue of streaming music payouts to artists, as part of the wider debate on whether Spotify and its rivals can generate a sustainable income for musicians. The Guardian's article is here.  Keating had previously revealed that nearly 97% of her income came from sales of her music on iTunes, Amazon and her own Bandcamp website. Keating's total streaming payments for the two releases were $3,454.28 in the first half of 2013. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Keating's last album, 2010's Into the Trees, is available to buy, but not to stream. Thanks to my good friend Arthur for alerting me to this article!


Helicon Books, an ebook technology and services company from Israel, has announces a new service for publishers,  Social DRM. It's for publishers who want to protect their ebooks and prevent copyright violation - and identifies the end costumer, “the buyer”, by stamping the book with the buyer's name. The visual information can appear in text or an image, according to the publisher's needs. The Social DRM is also hidden inside each chapter in the ebook. This hidden information can only be recognized by a bespoke software.

And finally - fan fiction - from Star Wars to Harry Potter tributes written by fans - but based on existing tomes - is a "uniquely creative and often surreal" phenomena on the Internet - where every year thousands if not millions of works of fiction  are written by fans of the worlds, characters, and plot lines created by other authors. "There is fan fiction out there set in the world of Pride and Prejudice, Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter, Twilight, The Lord of the Rings, Sookie Sackhouse (True Blood), Harry Dresden and nearly every other popular book series, movie, or TV show you can think of" - and Copyright Myths From the World of Fan Fiction is an excellent article about where these authors stand when it comes to copyright written by a non lawyer- and clearly explains what fans can do to legitimise their offerings: from disclaimers such as "I don't own them and I don't make any money off of them" to details of which publishers and authors live with fan fiction - which ones litigate - and which ones offer a mechanism for allowing fan fiction.to be published - its was an educational read for this blogger.

Queen honours CLA's Kevin Fitzgerald

Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) Chief Executive Kevin Fitzgerald has today been appointed Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG) in the Queen's Birthday Honours List. Kevin been honoured for his services to British economic interests, in particular, the promotion of intellectual property internationally and the welfare of British nationals imprisoned abroad.

Under Kevin's leadership the CLA - now in its 30th year - has worked closely with the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) towards developing a robust international copyright system that supports creators and publishers and underpins the UK creative industries. The UK creative industries bring major benefits to the British economy, generating £70,000 every minute, employing 1.5 million people and promoting British culture overseas.

In addition to his position as Chief Executive at CLA, Kevin chairs Prisoners Abroad, a humanitarian charity which provides non-judgmental care for British citizens imprisoned overseas.

Well done, Kevin!