Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:44:17.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Photocopying, Libraries and the Copyright Law of the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2019

Extract

The present Copyright Act of the United Kingdom was passed in 1956, when modern photocopying was in its comparative infancy. The lusty cries of the novel technology were echoed in the Act. For instance, publishers secured a new form of copyright -in the typographical arrangement of an edition– which was protected against unauthorised reproduction by any photographic or similar process for 25 years from first publication of the edition. The Act also attempted to strike a balance over photocopying and similar practices. But the result was a cautious compromise which simply has not worked.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © International Association of Law Libraries 1976 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Copyright Act, s. 15.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., ss. 6 (1), 9 (1).Google Scholar

3 Copinger and Stone James on Copyright (11th ed.) para. 462. The judicial decision which comes closest to the question, however, concerned a publishing firm which reproduced examination material as a commercial venture; it claimed (unsuccessfully) that, because its purchasers would use the information for private study, on the lortext this was fair dealing. The situation is, however, quite different from that of the student copying for his fellows. (See University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. [1916] 2 Ch. 601.)Google Scholar

4 The section was further complicated by an arrangement allowing the Department of Trade to make more detailed regulations as to its operation. In the event, these regulations, the Copyright (Libraries) Regulations 1957 did not do a great deal more to elucidate the situation, but some of the details outlined here come from them.Google Scholar

5 Decided on 1st May 1975. The proceedings in the court below are reported in [1975] Reports of Patent Cases 454. The relevant sections of the Australian Copyright Act 1968 are ss. 40 and 49. [See also below p. 32.]Google Scholar

6 Now reissued by the British Copyright Council, Photocopying and the Law.Google Scholar

7 Ronald Barker, Photocopying Practices in the United Kingdom (1967).Google Scholar

8 The statement adds that in the case of short literary works in a compilation each must be regarded as a work in itself for this purpose.Google Scholar

9 There are further provisions in the statement regarding the copying of illustrations.Google Scholar

10 See Copyright Act 1956, ss. 6 (2), 6 (6).Google Scholar

11 This section will also apply to some photocopying undertaken by librarians.Google Scholar