From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 18:59:36 -0600

It's the Berne Convention, as John knows. As for moral rights, they
have always been basic to the copyright laws of the countries of
mainland Europe. Anglo-American law has been based more on copyright
protection as economic incentive, though both UK and US law pay some,
if marginal, attention to moral rights (under US law certain works of
art are recognized as having moral rights attached to them). I'd say
that the most recent revision of UK law has narrowed the gap between
fair dealing and fair use, though the UK notion is still somewhat more
restrictive with respect, for example, to the amount of copying that
can be done from a single work for educational use. In general,
though, these quibbles apart, i agree with the main point that John is
making here.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: John Cox <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:36:21 +0000
>
> UK copyright law follows the same logic and contains similar
> provisions to US copyright law, as both the UK and the USA (as well as
> most other countries) are signatories to the Bern Convention and are
> members of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).  UK
> copyright law is broadly the same as copyright laws in other member
> states of the European Union under the European Copyright Directive.
>
> UK and US copyright law differ in two respects:
>
> a.  US 'fair use' is generally seen as broader than UK 'fair dealing'
> and 'library privilege'.  In practice, there is probably not much to
> worry an academic library.
>
> b.  UK, like European, copyright law recognises 'moral rights', which
> US law does not.  Moral rights belong to the author, and protect the
> author's right to be identified with the work and ensure that the work
> is not distorted. It demands no more of the publisher or user than
> honesty and decency require.
>
> I have worked with US libraries and library organisations such a CARL
> for the past 25 Years, and have never encountered a copyright problem
> with a UK work that would not have arisen had it been published in the
> USA. So there should be absolutely no problem.
>
> John Cox
> Rookwood, Bradden
> Towcester, Northants
> NN12 8ED
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1327 861184
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Leopold <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 22:37:31 +0000
>
> [MOD NOTE:  A good question, but it received no liblicense-l
> responses.  Anyone out there have any words of wisdom?]
>
> We've been asked to sign a license from a company in the U.K. which
> binds us to U.K. copyright law.  Here's the passage:
>
> "This Agreement shall be deemed to complement and extend the rights of
> the Institution and Authorised Users under the United Kingdom's
> Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and Copyright (Visually
> Impaired Persons) Act 2002 and nothing in this Agreement shall
> constitute a waiver of any statutory rights held by the Institution
> and Authorised Users from time to time under these Acts or any
> amending legislation."
>
> Does anyone have any insight as to whether we should accept this?  I
> don't know if U.K. and U.S. copyright law are similar enough for us to
> agree with this, or whether we should ask that it be struck and
> replaced with a referenced to U.S. law.
>
> Thanks for any help you can offer.
>
> Terry Ann Leopold
> E-Resource Manager
> Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries
> 3801 E. Florida Ave., Suite 515
> Denver, CO  80210
> [log in to unmask]
> Phone - 303.759.3399, ext 111. Fax - 303.759.3363