Jump to content

UK copyright law- may not make sense to everyone


Recommended Posts

Like i said, this may not make sense to everyone- if you understand why UK copyright is relevant to the Gu at the minute, and you can stand the convoluted language, you might reward yourself with a justifiable Gu-ey smirk by the time you get to the end.


UK copyright law differs from US copyright law in that UK copyright is automatically assumed as soon as any artefact or other thing is created by the entity entitled to be identified as its author or creator.

So, for example, if you were to be daft enough not to know this and follow the kind of bad advice you might get online or from the actions of a particular stateside hero you might have (cough... Lars), and write a song with a remarkably similar riff (for example), and then go out and copyright it, in the UK this wouldn't work,legally, as the original author (or creative entity) still has the right to be identified as the creator of the work, even if they did not specifically copyright the (e.g.) song.

If anyone were to copyright a ripped off melody (for example) after it were publicly established as the work of another entity- for example by being released on an EP for which there was ample evidence of the recording and release date, or date stamped video or MP3s, it would be extremely foolish of the first party (the rippee) to count on 'official' copyright of such a melody if that copyright were asserted after established dates on which this melody were played by the the second party (the ripped off)- copyright automatically belonging to the first established entity to have created any particular creation.

Copyright action costs a lot of money- it would be a daft thing to go out and copyright something you know to bear a close resemblance to someone else's work unless

1) You thought they were about to become very famous and make lots of money, and were daft enough not to check out UK copyright law, thinking you might make a fast buck or two by copyrighting someone else's work.

2) You were even dafter and though you might become rich and famous yourself, and keep a view to establishing Lars-like infamy by bringing action against others.

Personally, if I were in the position of finding out someone else had just gone out and copyrighted my stuff instead of going to the bother of writing their own, i wouldn't sue their ass- particularly if everyone was laughing at them anyway.

I would just wait for them to show their hand and see if they're bringing an action- (especially since this isn't the kind of thing you can get legal aid for)- let them clock up the legal costs, collect your evidence, and look forward to all them juicy damages and costs.....

I can go back through all my old data law and ethics, and publishing law notes, for UK and international copyright law, if anyone wants any further info on this. It was a subject in which i did nae bad at all, if i mind right.

all the best and a well Gu-ey new year :laughing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Yeh I wouldnt say it was random at all, and can totally see where this is coming from. So could you just clarify this from the way the post reads to me, it would seem that if an artist is the first to genuinely write/create a piece of music then it belongs to that particular party as long as they can produce some form of proving that they were the party to create it. Im maybe missing the point but thats how it reads to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...