This work should be cited as: Olwyn Mitchell, The Internet and Electronic Copyright: Fanfiction and the unacknowledged use of copyright material, University of Aberystwyth, 1995. MSc dissertation.Introduction - A history of British copyright
"Labour gives a man a natural right of property in that which he produces: literary compositions are the effect of labour; authors therefore have a natural right of property in their work."1 William Enfield in Observations on literary property, in 1774.
Copyright, as indicated in the introduction, is generally considered to cover the economic and moral rights of the author. These include the exclusive right of the creator or author of a work to publish, copy, alter, and be known as the author of the work created. The right to copy is alienable, i.e. it can be sold, licensed or given to a second party. However, the rights to alter a work, and to be represented as the author of that work are inalienable, and under UK law was covered by a variety of laws including passing off, fraud and libel until the enactment of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. 2
The idea of a copy right, that an author continues to have any control over his work despite releasing it to the public, let alone any property rights in the work is a relatively recent concept. The very idea of authors having rights in their works, other than the right to be known as the author is only some three hundred years old. 3 Prior to 1557, the book trade was to all intents and purposes unregulated. Through a Star Chamber decree of 1556 (repeated in 1585), Queen Mary granted the Stationers' Company of London the privilege of regulating the book trade. 4
In return the Stationers' Company submitted to Privy Council censorship on the books its members published. This first regulation of the book trade in no way represented the modern concept of copyright - the author sold the manuscript for a fixed sum, and all rights with it. It merely ratified a standing trade agreement on the regulation of printing and publishing and was partially a form of imposing state control over literature, with no idea of the protection of authors. These early common-law copyrights were perpetual, and were bought and sold as commodities, and for investment, such items as the Bunyan and Milton copyrights fetching great sums as being certain of continuing returns. 5 The so-called "Stationers' Copyright" however merely referred to the exclusive right of the owner to publish the work, no rights were implied regarding alteration of the work.
The first statute in Britain (indeed, anywhere) to refer to the rights of the author, rather than printing and publishing rights, was the Statute of Anne in 1709. 6 This new copyright law was more designed to break the monopoly of the Company of Stationers, than to preserve any authorial rights, but the effect was far more important. The act was clearly modelled on the Statute of Monopolies brought in during the reign of James I, which similarly limited the period for which the creator had exclusive possession of his works. 7 Both acts provided a 21 year period of protection to works which had been printed and published prior to the act, and a renewable 14 year period for those written, printed or published subsequently. The Statute of Anne had little immediate impact, but legal cases began to appear some twenty years later with the cessation of copyright on a variety of authors, such as Bunyan, Shakespeare and Milton, whose works were now in the public domain. Furthermore, the effect of the act as a tool leading to modern copyright was reduced through the long-standing idea that with the sale of the manuscript, the author was considered to have assigned all rights in the work to the publisher. Indeed the act is generally considered to have had the purpose of bringing published material under state control - yet again an attempt at censorship. There was no real belief in the "rights of the author".
It took a series of cases brought by booksellers and publishers "on behalf" of authors, to create the kind of copyright which is meant today, the definitive case settling the matter being settled in 1774 with Donaldson v Becket. 8 Internationally, attitudes varied, where French law included "droits d'auteur", "droit moral" and "droit de suite" as a matter of course, other countries were less generous. The French, in an effort to achieve copyright protection for all French nationals, instituted unilateral copyright legislation, in an imperial decree on 28 March 1852, 9 which gave, at least in theory, copyright protection to all works published in France as if they had been written by a French national.
The efforts to bring copyright protection to British authors publishing abroad, through bilateral treaties, and the similar efforts by other countries led eventually to the Berne Convention on Copyright of 1886.10 The convergence of individual nations' domestic laws on copyright, as they complied with the conditions of the Berne Convention, brought the concept of the author's moral rights further into UK copyright law. The concept of moral rights emerged through case law, long before it came into the UK legislature.
The 1911 Copyright Act clarified the law considerably. Although common law 11 copyright had been effectively eroded in 1774 with Donaldson v Becket, 12 when the pre-eminence of statutory law over the common-law was asserted in the House of Lords, the 1911 Act abolished and wholly replaced it with statutory law. Thus an offence was committed only if the statute had already stated that such an act infringed on copyright. The moral rights of an author were still not included, falling far short of French copyright legislation.
It was not until the Treaty of Rome in 1928 that authorial moral rights took a higher profile in international treaty, which would gradually come to be reflected in domestic law. Italian and French law both allowed for the moral rights of an author already: most other nations' domestic law did not, but the clause was pushed through. However, this had little immediate impact on British domestic copyright law. It was not until 1956 that copyright legislation was fully revised again. The 1956 Act brought the question of an author's moral rights into the statutory framework although it only provided for the protection of the author from false attribution of his work. 13
Finally, the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act made the explicit connection between the physical or economic rights of an author over his work, and his moral rights in the same work, protecting both from infringement, bringing the UK in line with the provisions of the Berne Convention.
UK Copyright Law
Current British copyright law regarding written works
("Literary works" in CDPA88 (14)) takes two basic directions,
confusingly described as "rights of the copyright owner" and
"moral rights" in the CDPA88. 15 First there is the right,
based on the Lockean arguments of property, of the author to
benefit from what Rose calls "the fruits of his labours".16
That is, the author of a literary work has the exclusive first
right to print and publish that work, to assign the exclusive
right to print and publish the work, to benefit from such
publication, and to prevent others from printing, publishing
and benefiting without his permission. In essence this means
that an author's work cannot be copied and published without
his permission. There is however a let out in that copying is
permissible, as long as it is done for the purposes of private
study or academic research, and complies with the notion of
"fair dealing". Thus far only wholesale copying has been
mentioned: the reproduction of an entire work, or large parts
of that work without the permission of the author. This right,
what might be called the economic copyright, applies to the
content and form, the specific expression of the ideas included
in the work, thus the work is protected in every format,
typescript, font and medium, without adaptation. The exclusive
right of the author to adapt substantially is part of these
rights, although this begins to blur into the second broad area
of copyright protection: the author's moral rights. All such
economic rights can be sold, (whether permanently assigned or
temporarily licensed), or given away.
Moral Rights
The moral rights explicitly incorporated for the first time
into the UK legislature in the CDPA88 are a significant step
forward in the area of intellectual property. 17 These rights
are generally speaking inalienable, that is, no matter what
happens to the economic copyright of a work, the moral rights
remain with the author permanently, and after his death with
his estate, for the period of the copyright. The moral rights
of an author in Britain are the right to be identified as the
author of his work (paternity), and the right to object to
defamatory treatment of the work, or treatment likely to reduce
his reputation or standing (integrity). The author could
protect against such acts prior to the 1988 enactment through
use of the law of passing off, and the libel laws, but these
were cumbersome processes, expensive, and especially in the
case of libel, notoriously hard to substantiate.
Registration Requirements
Under UK law, as in all countries signatory to the Berne
Convention, there is no registration requirement for the
protection of a work. However, under the Universal Copyright
Convention, 18 there is a registration requirement before a work
gains copyright status. The USA was signatory to only the UCC
until 1989, and so the use of the symbol was made to indicate
that the work was registered as copyright in the US and in
other countries which were not signatories to the Berne
Convention. The use of the copyright symbol is not necessary
for copyright protection in the UK, as long as other
requirements of eligibility to copyright are satisfied.
Period of Copyright
A literary work which has a known author currently has a period
of copyright which consists of the author's lifetime, plus
fifty years. This is the minimum that the Berne Convention
requires, and less than recent EEC Directives19 have required,
although more than some other countries have implemented. The
law in the UK has recently changed to give the EEC standard of
protection of 70 years, whilst American legislators are
considering increasing the period of protection to 120 years.
The work of an unknown author is protected for a period of
fifty years from the date of first publication. A work of
multiple authorship has copyright according to the nature of
the contribution. If the separate authors can be clearly
distinguished (e.g. each has written a chapter or similar),
copyright runs for each section as a single separate author. If
the contributions are inseparable, then copyright runs for the
life of the authors plus fifty years after the death of the
last surviving author. If copyright resides in the editor or
publisher of a work, the same conditions apply as for anonymous
works. Copyright also applies to particular editions of works,
i.e. the particular arrangement of notes, introduction,
typescript, and lasts for twenty-five years. Works produced as
part of a contract, or in the course of employment are
generally considered to have the employer as the owner of the
copyright, although the author continues to have the moral
right to be known as the author.
Licenses
Permission to copy, print, use or adapt a work must be in
written form, and if there is more than one author, permission
must be received from all authors affected. Such permission is
known as licensing, and bodies exist to supervise the licensing
of copying in small quantities as in photocopying. Authors may
license use of their work, giving someone else the right to
adapt their work, but the licensor does not have any copyright
in the resultant work, that is the property of the licensed
author of that work. Unlicensed use of the original work is an
infringement and may involve the use of as little as a single
phrase if it is particularly significant to the work as a
whole. The question of "substantial" infringement was covered
in the 1966 case of Frisby v British Broadcasting Corporation.
The BBC had purchased a play from Mr Frisby with an
understanding that a particular line of the play gave form to
the entire play, and was crucial to the work as a whole. When
the BBC in fact removed the line from the play, Frisby sued for
copyright infringement and won. The judge decided that the
author's opinion of the cruciality of the line, and the clear
direction the author had given to the purchaser, meant that a
single line of that particular play could, and indeed did
constitute a "substantial" part of the work within the meaning
of the act, even though the BBC had paid for the use of the
play, and even though the part in question was quantitively
small - substantiality was an issue of quality as much as of
sheer quantity. 20
UK Copyright Law and Fan Fiction
Fan fiction does not necessarily copy an author's
work, so much as mimic it. Thus an integral
question is whether fan fiction impinges on the
legal economic rights of an author, the legal moral
rights, or is in fact merely an interesting ethical
issue, with no implications in law. A further
problem is that of the original author
inadvertently infringing the copyright of a fan
fiction, while creating fiction set in the milieu
the original author invented. This may sound
unlikely, but has already come close to happening
in America.21 Probably the area which causes most
of concern to both original and secondary authors,
is that of moral rights, but the entire question of
copyright and fan fiction will be dealt with more
fully in chapters 3 and 4 below. Licensed fan
fiction is not a problem in copyright terms, but
unlicensed fan fiction has several distinct
difficulties regarding copyright. It is a fluid
area, and each case has to be judged individually.
International Copyright Conventions
International conventions on copyright now form the
backbone of UK copyright law. The first such
convention was the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.22 It
was produced in 1886 partly as the result of a
burgeoning interest in universal law during the
19th century, but mostly through the impetus of
authors who were losing money due to the prevalence
of the piracy of their works abroad. The
International Authors Association (ALAI), at an
international literary gathering in June 1878,23
decided that some agreement was required to
rationalise the wide variation between domestic
copyright laws, and stop the piracy of literary
works - American piracy of British works, Dutch of
German works, and Belgian of French works,
principally. Of the fourteen countries attending
the meeting, twelve became signatories, America and
Japan remaining as observers (although Japan
subsequently signed in 1889). In 1952, partly in
an effort to bring the United States into the
international copyright fold, a second
international convention, the Universal Copyright
Convention,24 was set up. As mentioned above, the
UCC had far less rigorous treatment of copyright,
reduced requirements for the period of copyright,
and a registration requirement. The Stockholm
revisions (1967) of the Berne Convention were
incorporated as the 1971 Paris document, when the
UCC and Berne became virtually identical. Although
Britain has abided by the provisions of the Paris
revision, the treaty was not in fact ratified until
1988, when, with the enactment of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act, the UK ceased to be in
abrogation of its duty to implement the provisions
of the convention in its domestic law.
Following the Second World War the issue of copyright was incorporated in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, at Article 27 which declares
2: Everyone shall have the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author25
The "material interests" mentioned amount to the right of an author to be the sole beneficiary of any economic advantages arising from his authorship as described previously. The moral rights in international law are summed up in Article 6bis of the Stockholm revision (Paris 1971) of the Berne Convention:
Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work, and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.26
Copyright and the Electronic Format
The question of copyright in the electronic medium
has been a major question for the last thirty or
more years. The 1971 Paris Revision of the Berne
Convention refers to a working party on the
subject, and there are a number of international
copyright bodies which have concerned themselves
with it. The World Intellectual Property
Organisation has established an experts' group to
consider a possible new protocol to the Berne
Convention,27 the EEC Esprit program is examining
the problem in its CITED project (Copyright in
Transmitted Electronic Documents).28 Legally
speaking, the consensus appears to be that
electronic media, whether software, CD-ROM, floppy
disk or Internet site is simply another "printed"
medium. Copyright exists in it, as in any other
format. The problems arise not in regard to the
existence of copyright, but in the protection of
works and the enforcement of the law on copyright.
There are three principle areas of difficulty in
electronic copyright:
Ease of reproduction
The invention of photocopiers created a major
upheaval in the question of copyright, but the
invention and rapid spread of the use of scanning
devices, where a printed page can be copied onto a
disk, has increased the potential for abuse and
infringement. Documents placed directly onto the
Internet are possibly in more danger of illegal
reproduction than any other kind of published
medium. Copies can be made of a work which are
identical in every detail to the original, with
little more effort than pressing a few buttons, the
only limits to the numbers of such copies which can
be made is the amount of memory space available.
It is simple to place the stolen work into a text
editor of some sort to manipulate it at will. This
can then be republished, altered or unaltered,
either by physically printing the item, or by
posting it to an Internet site. There is almost
nothing the author can do to prevent this
happening, although redress is available should the
infringement be discovered. The use of electronic
media has considerably eased the time and effort it
takes to copy and transmit anything which can be
reduced to a digital format. Michael Lean in his
World Wide Web article Copyright and the World Wide
Web writes "...it's now theoretically possible to
transmit the entire oeuvre of humankind across the
globe in 7.5 seconds. And that's a 1992 figure".29
Preventing such a transfer while still allowing
access to the material may prove an impossible
task, as software exists which is usually able to
overcome almost any protection.
International copyright
Under the Berne Convention, infringement is
prosecuted with reciprocal measures, i.e. the
infringement of a British author's copyright is
treated as the infringement of the copyright of a
national of whatever country the infringement
occurred in, and all foreign works originating from
Berne signatory countries are treated in Britain as
if written by a British national. This simplifies
all questions of electronic infringement that
occurs in Britain, as British law applies, no
matter where the stolen item was taken from, and
Berne and UCC signatory countries provide a similar
protection to British authors infringed upon.
Countries which are not signatory to the Berne or
Universal conventions on copyright have no remedy
for copyright infringement of their nationals'
works, nor do other countries have any remedy
against copyright theft occurring in that country.
Though TRIPS and GATT have been adapted to provide
remedies for infringements of intellectual property
rights, including copyright, there are very few
measures a country can take to stop another
infringing the copyright of their nationals whether
they are a signatory to an international treaty or
not. This was recently exemplified by the
threatened US trade sanctions against China for
collusion in video and audio piracy. China, a
signatory to the Berne and UCC, needed the income
generated from the creation and export of pirated
audio compact discs and video tapes. Not
unnaturally, the US objected to losing a major part
of its export market - export of items from the
entertainment industry in America is their second
biggest earner. 30
Multimedia
This is not strictly relevant to the overall
subject, but suffice it to say that, due to the
nature of multimedia - the use of audio, visual and
textual works taken from different authors, and
thus with widely varying copyright periods, owners,
conditions and legislation, the question of
multimedia copyright is excessively complicated,
but is more a problem for the individual editor or
compiler in acquiring all the correct licenses and
agreements, than for legislators. The fact that
the problems of multimedia copyright are often
spoken of as if they were synonymous with
electronic copyright is a result of confusing the
medium used with the contents. Multimedia
copyright is a dual problem, part of which relates
to the nature of CD-ROM and electronic data storage
technology, and part of which relates to the huge
variety of types of content which the electronic
medium can store, i.e. audio-visual, graphical and
textual which, as stated above have different
copyright laws. Often the combination of types of
formats used results in questions not merely of the
type of copyright legislation applicable, but even
which country's laws apply.
Copyright law is then both simple and complex. It can be simply stated that all works are copyright, but once the details are required - copyright to whom, for how long, in what countries, what breaks the law etc., the whole matter heads into territory that rapidly becomes not merely murky, but virtually impenetrable without careful and detailed study of the particular area in question. Copyright law clearly applies to all media. Indeed American copyright law states explicitly that it applies to all data storage media currently in existence or yet to be invented. The next question then to consider is the particular problem of fan fiction.
Footnotes
1 Enfield, William, Observations on literary property, London 1774 p21
Return to main text
2 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c48, London, HMSO, 1988. Referred to hereafter as CDPA88
Return to main text
3 It has been suggested that Rabbinical privileges regarding the laws and judgements were an early form of copyright, but there are few points of resemblance between the two concepts, and even less indication of cross-fertilisation of ideas that would have been necessary for the theory of a sequential or causative relationship to have been proven.
Return to main text
4 Copinger , W., Skone James, E., Copinger and Skone James on copyright including international copyright with the statutes, orders conventions and agreements thereto relating and precedents and court forms also related forms of protection, 13th ed., London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1991, p167
Return to main text
5 Rose, M, The author as proprietor: Donaldson v Becket and the genealogy of modern authorship, in Authors and Origins: essays on copyright law ed. Sherman, Brad and Strowel, Alain, Clarendon Press, London, 1994 p26
Return to main text
6 8 Anne c.21 An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned. This act came into force [April 10?] 1710, although it is published in the 1709 (or 1709-1710 regnal) Statutes of the Realm, thus it is sometimes referred to as the 1710 statute. Return to main text
7 21 James I c.3, Statute of Monopolies, Statutes of the Realm 21 James I 1786-7
Return to main text
8 Donaldson v Becket, 4 Burroughs (4th ed.) 2408, 98 English Reports 251. House of Lords 22nd February 1774.
Return to main text
9 Saunders, David, Authorship and copyright, Routledge, London, 1992 p.171
Return to main text
10 The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9 1886, 828 UN Treaty Series, 221.
Return to main text
11 Common law is perpetual in effect, statute law is limited to the act passed and its statutory instruments. McFarlane, G,. Copyright through the cases, London, Waterlow, 1986.p (1.01)
Return to main text
12 See above at note 7
Return to main text
13 4&5 Elizabeth 2, Copyright Act 1956, c74, s43
Return to main text
14 See above at note 2
Return to main text
15 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c48 Ss ff., London, HMSO, 1988 pp ii and iv respectively.
Return to main text
16 Rose, M, The author as proprietor: Donaldson v Becket and the genealogy of modern authorship, in Authors and Origins: essays on copyright law ed. Sherman, Brad and Strowel, Alain, Clarendon Press, London, 1994 p 31
Return to main text
17 CDPA88, Ch. 4-6, Ss 77-89, 94-95, 103
Return to main text
18 Universal Copyright Convention 6 US. Treaty Series. 2731, 216 United Nations Treaty Series 134, 1952; hereafter UCC
Return to main text
19 Council Directive 93/98/EEC Official Journal, L122/42 (14 May 1991) which prescribes that member states shall have provisions for the implementation of a 70 year copyright protection period by 1 July 1995 (Article 13(1))
Return to main text
20 Frisby v British Broadcasting Corporation, [1967], 2 All England Law Reports 106
Return to main text
21 See below at page 33
Return to main text
22 See above, note 10
Return to main text
23 Cinque, Robert, Making cyberspace safe for copyright, Fordham International Law Journal 18 (1995) p1258
Return to main text
24 For a full reference see above at note 18
Return to main text
25 Olswang, S., Accessright: an evolutionary path for copyright into the digital era?, European Intellectual Property Review ,1995, 5, p215
Return to main text
26 International convention further revising the Berne Convention or the protection of literary and artistic works of 9 September 1886, cm 1212, Treaty Series No. 63, London, HMSO 1990, p30
Return to main text
27 Cinque, Robert, Making cyberspace safe for copyright, Fordham International Law Journal 18 (1995), p1261-2, 1272-8.
Return to main text
28 Keates, S., Copyright protection in the electronic AV environment - the CITED model, Audiovisual Librarian, 19 (4), p287-9
Return to main text
29 Lean, Michael, Copyright and the World Wide Web, URL http://www.scu.edu.au/ausweb95/papers/future/lean/, 1995 p.4
Return to main text
30 Cinque, Robert, Making Cyberspace safe for copyright, Fordham International Law Journal 18 (1995) p1276-8
Return to main text