News from France

                                                             

On December 2nd, the Paris Court of Appeals handed down its ruling in the long running litigation between the French commercial TV broadcaster TF1 and DailyMotion, the "French YouTube".

The Court, while rejecting TF1's argument that DailyMotion was the publisher of the content posted to its site by users (and holding, to the contrary, that it was, in respect of such content, entitled to the safe harbour protection as hosting entity), did find that DailyMotion failed in its duty to act promptly upon proper notification to remove the infringing conetent.  TF1 (and its various subsidiaries) was therefore awarded €1.3M in damages.

On December 4th, the Paris High Court released its decision in a site blocking case brought by SCPP (the recorded music industry's representative body) in relation to the notorious Pirate Bay sites.  In accordance with Section L.336-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, the action was brought against the ISPs (and not the site operators themselves).  The Court allowed the action and ordered the ISPs to block access to the infringing sites.

The FrenchKat intends to post a more detailed analysis of both of these decisions just as soon as he can!

A comic book hero - by night she fought for fair use!

This looks like fun - a new comic book from Duke University that looks to translate some copyrights and copywrongs into an interesting, visual story that explains copyright - and some of the current problems with copyright. 

The heroine of the comic, Tales From The Public Domain: BOUND BY LAW?, is a documentary film maker, and she has to navigate the wacky world of intellectual property law, learn the fine line between  what might be fair use and what might be copyright infringement, and other conundrums with the tag lines "Trapped in a struggle she didn't understand" and "By night she fought for fair use"! The storyline  goes beyond art and photos and film making into the world of  digital remixes, the pitfalls of making videos of people, scenes and actualite, and other "tricky topics" such as using a clip of 'Happy Birthday' in the fictional film which is all about capturing a day in the life of New York, understanding copyright terms and the concept of public domain, and the issues behind accidentally featuring a few seconds of The Simpsons which was playing on a TV at the back of a shot. 

The authors are artist and cartoonist Keith Akoi, James Boyle, a law professor at Duke Law School  and Jennifer Jenkins, Director of Duke's Center for the Study of the Public Domain. 

As Lifehacker quite rightly says "At the very least, it's more engaging than a visit to the [US] government's copyright website."

You can download a digital versions of the comic for free, read all 74 pages in your web browser, or buy the print version for $6.

Mies's Pieces: when an offer for sale might be "distribution"

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe:
so much name, so little chair ...

Our friends in Curia have spared us an English version of Case C-516/13 Dimensione Direct Sales srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA, a Court of Justice of the European Union reference upon which Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón delivered his Opinion this morning. For those who enjoy a more detailed and lucid account of this Opinion than this blogger can provide, fellow blogger Eleonora -- a talented linguist as well as a copyright enthusiast -- has posted this analysis on the IPKat.

This is a reference from the German Bundesgerichtshof on the InsoSoc Directive, asking:

1. Does the distribution right under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 include the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale?

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:

2. Does the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale include not only contractual offers, but also advertising measures?

3. Is the distribution right infringed even if no purchase of the original or copies of the work takes place on the basis of the offer?

What is this case all about? In brief, Knoll International SpA is the Italian bit of the Pennsylvania-based Knoll International Group, which makes and sells furniture worldwide. This furniture includes copyright-protected items designed by Marcel Breuer and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Knoll holds the exclusive rights of exploitation of furniture designed by Marcel Breuer and non-exclusive rights in the furniture of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.

Dimensione (the company involved in Case C-5/11 Donner) is an Italian company managed by Labianca; it distributes designer furniture direct sales and offers furniture for sale on its website, in German among other languages. In 2005 and 2006, Dimensione advertised its services in Germany in various newspapers and magazines as well as a flyer which stated:

"Buy your furniture in Italy and pay only when removing or delivery by a carrier entitled to receive payment (service provided on request)".

Knoll International seised [Google Translate offers "grabbed"] the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany), applying for injunctive relief and the disclosure of information. An order was granted in Knoll's favour and this decision was affirmed on appeal.  Dimensione then appealed further to the Bundesgerichtshof. which asked the questions above.

This morning the Advocate General advised the Court of Justice to rule that Article 4(1) of the InfoSoc Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the distribution right includes the right of the copyright owner of the original or copies of a copyright work to prohibit any person from offering the original or copies for sale to the public without consent, including where such offer has led to any acquisition, provided that such an offer was made with the clear intention to enter into contracts of sale or other act involving a transfer of ownership in them.

It's up to the Court of Justice to decide whether to adopt this Opinion or not; the odds are in favour of it doing so in light of its earlier case law -- though this is a bit of an affront to the notion of "distributing" as being actually moving something from one place to another.  This blogger confines himself to one short comment which is that we have become so used to thinking of copyright-infringing acts as being connected to the internet and communication technologies that it's refreshing to be reminded that it applies to solid objects too.

The CopyKat - choppy waters ahead for 'safe harbor' ?

New Zealand Judge Nevin Dawson has said that Kim Dotcom does not have secret assets or pose a flight risk, rejecting prosecutors’ plea to send him to jail or wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. Dotcom is fighting attempts by the U.S. to extradite him on criminal copyright charges over his involvement with the Megaupload platform. After a three day hearing Dawson did tighten Dotcom's bail conditions by ruling he can no longer travel by private helicopter or boat, and must report to police twice a week.

In the US, BMG and Round Hill Music have filed a lawsuit that might prove to be an important test case on the obligations, or otherwise, of internet service providers in the ongoing fight against piracy. According to the Wall Street Journal, the two music rights firms are suing Cox Communications, the third largest cable TV company in the US. The music companies say that Cox should be held liable for the copyright infringement of its file-sharing customers because it has failed to respond in any way to notices alerting the company to the actions of its infringing users as provided by BMG and Round Hill's representative agency - the somewhat controversial Rightscorp Inc (described by techdirt as a "struggling copyright trolling operation") - and is therefor outside of DMCA 'safe harbor' protection, particularly when it comes to 'repeat infringers'.  According to the WSJ, the legal complaint notes: "Cox has had ... knowledge of ... repeat infringement by its subscribers [via Rightscorp]. Nonetheless, Cox has repeatedly refused to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. The reason that Cox does not terminate these subscribers and account holders is obvious - it would cause Cox to lose revenue". Cox Communications was the one major player absent from the deal struck between the content owners and service providers back in 2011, the Copyright Alert System which did involved the likes of Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon. Cox has its own system. BMG and Round Hill are seeking damages for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and a judicial order requiring Cox to "promptly forward plaintiffs' infringement notices to their subscribers."

Has UKIP got itself a Christmas present in the form of a copyright lawsuit ? Maybe, as it seems the British right wing anti-EU party has used a recent cartoon by political cartoonist Christian Adams as it's 2014 Christmas card - without permission. The cartoon UKIP seems to have purloined originally featured in the Telegraph newspaper, and features a cartoon of UKIP leader Nigel Farage driving a white van over the leaders of the three main party - in reference to the tweet by the now departed Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry MP that showed a white van in front of a house decorated with the flag of St George with the hashtag #Rochester. UKIP recently won the byelection in Rochester demolishing the Labour, Liberal and Conservative vote.  Asked on twitter why he hadn't put the UKIP card on his Facebook timeline - Adams himself tweeted that UKIP had a problem as they "DID NOT ASK PERMISSION"!  More here on the IBT and here. 

And finally, the  Electronic Frontier Foundation has released an opinion piece by Maira Sutton Copyright Law as a Tool for State Censorship of the Internet arguing "When state officials seek to censor online speech, they’re going to use the quickest and easiest method available. For many, copyright takedown notices do the trick. After years of lobbying and increasing pressure from content industries on policymakers and tech companies, sending copyright notices to take media offline is easier than ever" and going on to say "Now we're seeing a disturbing trend where governments and state-friendly agencies are abusing DMCA takedowns to silence political criticism." with an interesting and global list of alleged abuses of 'DMCA' takedown censorship from around the World. Worth a read and its all on the EFF website here.

Copyright education in schools as a consumer awareness scheme: a comment

The 1709 Blog welcomes the following guest post from our friend Dr Andreas Rahmatian (University of Glasgow, School of Law) on Mike Weatherley's latest discussion paper, which this blogger welcomed in the IPKat weblog's Wednesday Whimsies this morning.  Andreas writes:

In October 2014, the former Intellectual Property Adviser to the Prime Minister, Mike Weatherley MP (right), published a Discussion Paper, ‘Copyright Education and Awareness’, which ‘aims to ensure more consumers – both young and old – are made aware of the value of IP’. This is because ‘we are all creators today’ and ‘there is a need for individuals to appreciate how copyright positively relates to value creation’ (Discussion Paper, p 8).

This Paper presents several ways to ‘address consumer confusion’ about copyright and ‘to raise awareness of IP-related issues among young people’, for example through collective information campaigns by copyright owners, the Government, the BBC and so on. Furthermore, awareness of IP rights should become part of the school curriculum, for example within the AS/A Level Media Studies curriculum. We are told that ‘it is essential to educate students on the value and application of IP and the role it may play in their future livelihoods’ (Discussion Paper, p 22). It is not essential.

First, I doubt whether teaching copyright awareness in the schools is really that necessary. A great number of pupils who leave school in Britain have little knowledge of a foreign language (essential also for appreciating properly one’s mother tongue), have a limited understanding of mathematics (essential for the logical thinking in all disciplines), and have an unimpressive command of English (e.g. ‘Pisa tests: UK stagnates as Shanghai tops league table’, BBC website, 3 December 2013 It is, however, a different issue how significant the Pisa-tests are). I then get some of these as my intellectual property law students at university. So time at school may be spent more fruitfully than on copyright protection matters. Secondly, especially among teenagers copyright is probably the best-known subject area of the law besides criminal law and family law, and certainly the only topic of commercial law a non-specialist is familiar with. Teenagers who download illegally from the Internet (and typically also know the illegality) accept the rules and therefore show a certain understanding of them. Illegal downloading is usually not the battle cry ‘property is theft’.  For example, that is not the idea of ‘copyleft’ either: ‘Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users’ freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That’s why we reverse the name, changing “copyright” into “copyleft”. Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It doesn’t mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible. The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb ‘to leave’—only to the direction which is the inverse of “right”’ here.  "However, illegal downloading is an acceptance of someone else’s property rights (without critical questioning of their entitlement) and an attempt at obtaining an unfair advantage by circumventing the rules and trying not to be caught. "This is like an investment bank speculating against its own clients (eg US National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States, ‘The Financial Crisis Enquiry Report (Final Report)’, 25 February 2011, pp. 142-146, 189, 193, 236-237, here). So there is not much gained in telling youngsters the obvious: you should not infringe copyright. Bemoaning that ‘the younger population does not have moral or ethical concerns about the practice of online copyright infringement’ (Discussion Paper, p. 11) is beside the point.

The third issue is most important. Not all downloading from the Internet is illegal (eg Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 28 et seq). And where it is, it should not always be illegal. The Discussion Paper does not mention these aspects at all. Yet, these would have to form an essential part of a school education about IP rights, if awareness of IP rights is to be in the school curriculum at all – leaving aside that the Paper really means copyright only when it speaks of ‘IP’. There seems to be no interest in enriching the school curriculum with a discussion about the history, justification and limits of copyright that a proper humanistic education would require. Instead, apparently unassailable laws should be taught as a skill on a need-to-know basis without fostering any understanding and critical engagement. According to the Discussion Paper, awareness about copyright really means appreciation of economic assets in form of copyright-protected works, the copyright typically being owned by the entertainment and software industries. School children should be indoctrinated that this is necessarily virtuous in itself and should be accepted without further discussion. Future generations should be good and passive consumers who respect these property rights of others and so cause not too much enforcement cost to the copyright owners. This purely commercial attitude that labels a composer or a music band as ‘content providers’ and musicians and listeners as ‘consumers’ is offensive. It degrades the most human of all activities, intellectual and cultural creations, to being just another form of commercial venture. We are not ‘all creators today’, we are all only forced to make money our principal aim in life today. In that we no longer stop at our cultural goods and at the education of the next generation to appreciate and create these.

Not the intellectual and cultural content is relevant, only whether that content can be provided as a commercially valuable asset through copyright. And that asset needs protection and respect, because ‘copyright positively relates to value creation’. Value creation is apparently the only creation that counts; it is not the creation of the creative person for its own sake. And indeed, for the most part the value is not created in favour of the artist, the creator, but for businesses as copyright owners. This is through copyright assignments, exclusive licences and employees’ copyright provisions (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 11(2), 90). A future school curriculum is supposed to instil respect for the copyright regime to maintain that state of affairs, apparently the best of all worlds. It seems that we can do without that kind of education.

Do you agree with Andreas? Do let us know.

User Generated Nonsense

As a begrudging user of Facebook (and quite new to it to boot) I recently, like all other users, received a very irritating post from FB itself (at the end of November) telling me all was changing when it came to privacy, cookies, advertising and using my data - and not to worry - and to be fair, that was followed up by a far more detailed email that told me:

Hi Ben,

We wanted to let you know we're updating our terms and policies on January 1, 2015 and introducing Privacy Basics. You can check out the details below or on Facebook.

Over the past year, we’ve introduced new features and controls to help you get more out of Facebook, and listened to people who have asked us to better explain how we get and use information.

Now, with Privacy Basics, you'll get tips and a how-to guide for taking charge of your experience on Facebook. We're also updating our terms, data policy and cookies policy to reflect new features we've been working on and to make them easy to understand. And we're continuing to improve ads based on the apps and sites you use off Facebook and expanding your control over the ads you see.

We hope these updates improve your experience. Protecting people's information and providing meaningful privacy controls are at the core of everything we do, and we believe today's announcement is an important step.

Sincerely,
Erin Egan

Global Chief Privacy Officer

Oh joy of joys. Improved ads - just what I wished for Christmas. But there again, if you sup with the Devil .........

The announcement prompted a flurry of online anger - and to be frank most of what FB says is a glossy load of mumbo jumbo - US corporate doublespeak designed to make FB look like the user's friend. Let's be honest - they are NOT anyone's friend - they are a business and their main business is data mining to sell advertising. They are not 'nice' (and for that matter neither are Google). If you use FB - get used to their business models. But in particular, the announcement prompted a flurry of postings so called 'copyright notices' from users trying to protect their own photographs, images, data and other material they had posted  - and these notices were widely copied over the next few days and subsequently posted on user's 'wall's'.  Indeed I myself took one and turned it into something I thought was quite amusing with some ludicrously overblown legal nonsense in it (but yes, lawyers jokes, only funny to other lawyers) using my very best 'Dr Evil' voice when it came to a liquidated damages provision - only to find that itself circulating and being featured on the walls of 'friends'. But here's an example 

Today, November 30, 2014 in response to the Facebook guidelines and under articles L.111, 112 and 113 of the code of intellectual property, I declare that my rights are attached to all my personal data, drawings, paintings, photos, texts etc... published on my profile. For commercial use of the foregoing my written consent is required at all times. Those reading this text can copy it and paste it on their Facebook wall. . This will allow them to place themselves under the protection of copyright. By this release, I tell Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, broadcast, or to take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The actions mentioned above apply equally to employees, students, agents and/or other staff under the direction of Facebook. The contents of my profile includes private information. The violation of my privacy is punished by the law (UCC 1 1-308 - 308 1 - 103 and the Rome Statute). Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are invited to post a notice of this kind, or if you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you have not published this statement at least once, you will tacitly allow the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile.

Or

PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any government including but not limited to the United States Federal Government or U.S. state legislatures who may desire to use or or be in any way involved in monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, please note that you do NOT have my permission to utilise any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile or any other information whether private or otherwise.

Effective? Well I have to say I think not! apart from legal nonsense one notice referred to 'laws' contained in the Berners Convention, by clicking 'yes' when you sign up to Facebook’s terms and conditions, and becoming a Facebook user, you do agree to let Facebook have access to data and content ......... and posting up belated notices just does't do anything much does it? As one commentator noted "Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls". ABC News reported a response from Facebook "We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts — when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them,"  with spokesman Andrew Noyes adding "Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings." 

That said, users really SHOULD read what they sign up to. Will they? I doubt it. As CNET noted, in June in an item on net neutrality, comedian John Oliver joked Apple could put the entire text of Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf" inside the iTunes user agreement and people would probably still click on "I Agree."

The obvious answer is that if you have problems with a commercial corporation being able to use a vast swathe of your personal information and images, don't sign up to FB - or if you have - delete your account (although that is (a) very tricky and (b not entirely effective. Without mass user action, FB wont' be changing their terms anytime soon. As TechTalk noted: The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." Facebook adds: "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." 

You have been warned! And remember, he who sups with the Devil  ..... should have a long spoon

More on CNET here and on the Huffington Post here

Valuing the public domain: some research -- and an event this Friday

"Valuing the Public Domain: a Workshop for UK Creative Firms" is an event coming up this Friday morning, 5 December at the Connected Digital Economy Catapult (CDEC), 101 Euston Road, London NW1 2RA. Further details are just a click away, here.  What's this all about? The project itself is explained by Martin Kretschmer -- and anyone whose surname contains five consecutive consonants deserves to be taken notice of.  This is what Martin writes:

Valuing the Public Domain: Summary of Research Findings 

‘Valuing the Public Domain’ is a major research and knowledge exchange project carried out by CREATe, University of Glasgow with the UK Intellectual Property Office, co-funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The purpose of the project was (1) to map the size of the public domain and frequency of its use [this blogger is sceptical about whether this can be done in a meaningful manner and questions whether it's worth it -- but he's prepared to be persuaded to the contrary]; (2) analyse the role of public domain works in value creation for UK firms; (3) assist UK media companies to identify business models that benefit from the public domain [is this predicated on the assumption that UK media companies need help in regard? Let's hear from them!].

The core research team consisted of Dr. Kris Erickson (Lord Kelvin Adam Smith Research Fellow, CREATe, University of Glasgow), Professor Paul Heald (College of Law, University of Illinois), Dr. Fabian Homberg (Business School, Bournemouth University), Professor Martin Kretschmer (CREATe, University of Glasgow) and Dr. Dinusha Mendis (School of Law, Bournemouth University).

Research focused on the production of new cultural products which draw inspiration from works and ideas in the public domain, such as a video game world based on the novels of Jane Austen, interactive folk tales for classrooms, or Steampunk novels adapted from historical accounts of Bristol.

Three research case studies were chosen: transmedia adaptation of public domain works by small creative studios in the UK, uptake and reuse of public domain materials by independent creators on Kickstarter, and inclusion of public domain images by contributors to Wikipedia.

As one of the goals of this study, a definition of the ‘public domain’ was derived in collaboration with legal experts and economists during a symposium in October 2013. The adopted definition focuses on the practicability of use without requiring permission from a rightsholder.

1) Copyright works which are out of term of protection
(Literary and artistic works created by authors who died prior to 1944)
2) Materials that were never protected by copyright
(Works from antiquity and folklore)
3) Underlying ideas not being substantial expression
(Inspiration taken from pre-existing work that may include genre, plot or character ideas)
4) Works offered to the public domain by their creator
(Certain types of free and open licensed work)

Commercial uptake by creative firms:

Interviews with managers of 22 creative UK firms that previously used public domain materials to create commercial products. Research explored why firms made decisions to invest in development of public domain projects, finding 4 main rationales: 1) engagement with fan community of existing literary work, 2) use of public domain material to complement a technological platform or subscription service; 3) a conscious entrepreneurial strategy based on identification of existing demand and 4) partnership with a public institution to celebrate and engage the public about an event or anniversary of significance. Researchers identified the following issues relating to public domain uptake:

§ Firms working with visual or multimedia content reported difficulties in locating and securing high-quality sources of public domain works (image resolution, digital format). This was a significant challenge to commercialisation.

§ Archives, museums, and libraries were frequently cited as useful partners when seeking access to public domain works, able to provide access to source material and data needed to ascertain copyright status of work.

§ There was little concern about competition due to non-excludability of source material, but firms worried about costs of marketing and sustaining PD projects when initial development cost and investment was also low.

§ Clarity on legal use (e.g. requirements for ‘diligent search’ when using orphan works) would improve commercialisation potential.

Independent creators on Kickstarter:

Crowdfunding platforms such as Kickstarter appear governed by an ethos which rewards originality and niche production. But what happens when pitch creators incorporate IP from a third party rightsholder, or material from the public domain? The team performed quantitative analysis on 1,933 Kickstarter projects from January to April 2014. Researchers employed statistical techniques to model likelihood of success of projects when different underlying copyright or public domain material was present. The main findings were as follows:

§ Explicitly obtaining copyright permission to use a third party work in a Kickstarter pitch was significantly associated with higher funding levels achieved.

§ Use of both public domain and third party licensed material were significantly associated with higher likelihood of project success.

§ Previous experience and status of pitch creator was also significant to project success, suggesting that familiarity of both underlying work and its creator is important to Kickstarter funders.

§ Influence of public domain status on success rate was most pronounced in Comics and Theatre categories, compared with Publishing and Video Games. This suggests that the role of PD materials differs across mediums. Direct re-publication of public domain literature does not seem to be rewarded – adaptation to another medium may be more attractive to backers.

Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is an important global resource which benefits from availability of materials in the public domain (due to copyright term expiration and open licensed material). To assess the value of the public domain to the construction of this resource, researchers studied the presence of public domain images on biographical Wikipedia pages of 1,700 authors, lyricists and composers.

§ Pages for authors born prior to 1880 have a greater likelihood of containing an image than pages for authors born later, even though camera technology became more widespread in the 20th Century. Less than 58% of authors in the sample born after 1880 have images associated with their Wikipedia pages.

§ Controlling for notoriety of authors using a matched-pairs technique, we found that authors’ pages with public domain images attracted 17% more visitors than pages where no image was available, reflecting the value those images contribute to the Wikipedia resource.

§ Using commercially equivalent licence fees obtained from Corbis and Getty for images relating to the biographical sample, we suggest that one could assign a value of USD $200 million (£127 million) per year for the 1,983,609 English-language Wikipedia pages in appropriate categories estimated to contain public domain images.

So there you have it!

Looking for a festive survey on copyright literacy? Here you go

Are you a librarian, information professional or someone working in educational, cultural and scientific institutions in the UK? This survey might be for you then, as 1709 Blog friend Chris Morrison (University of Kent) explains:

"Jane Secker (LSE) and I are carrying out research into levels of copyright literacy amongst professionals in UK information, cultural and heritage institutions. 

This research is part of an international project originating in the National Library of Bulgaria and analyses have already taken place in Bulgaria, Croatia and Turkey (July – October 2013) and in France (January-March 2014). Further research is currently taking place in Finland, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, Romania and USA.

We are calling on all librarians, information professionals or those working in educational, cultural and scientific institutions within the UK to complete this survey before 31 December 2014. We are asking for the assistance of influential copyright experts and practitioners to get as many people to complete this as possible. 

The survey comprises 27 multiple choice questions and should take no more than 15 minutes to complete. The research outputs are intended to assist institutions and policy makers in identifying strengths and weaknesses in the comprehension of and engagement with copyright issues in the UK. We think this is of particular importance during the current period of copyright reform.

Further details are available here, and people can complete the survey online here.

If you have any questions about the research or the survey please contact copyright@kent.ac.uk."