Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom/pl: Difference between revisions

|Flag = Flag of the United Kingdom.svg

|Government = <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">[[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Crown copyrightCROWN|Crown copyright]]</span>

|YearFreedom endof panorama = <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">YesFor 3D works and "works of artistic craftsmanship"</span>

** <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">50 years from first commercial publication, but</span>

** <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">works except engravings created prior to 30 June 1957: 50 years from creation</span>

** <divspan lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Photographs created before 30 June 1957: 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation</span>

==GeneralOgólne==

There are a number of variationsdetails onwhich thismust be taken into account, however.

Some works published from 2010 are available under the UK Open Government Licence, which(OGL).<ref isname=OpenGovLic/> The first version was meant to be compatible with the CC BY 3.0 licence, the latest version 3 with the CC-BY-4.0 Seelicence. Three versions of the {{tl|OGL}} exist. The following templates are available:

</div><ref name=OpenGovLic/>

The government also publishes a licence called Non-Commercial Government Licence<ref name=NCGL/>. This is [[COM{{pg|Commons:LLicensing|unacceptable]]}} by the Wikimedia Commons as it disallows the commercial reproductions. This licence was intended for use in a small handful of extremely limited circumstances and has not been widely adopted in government. See also [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canoe Slalom - Kynan Maley.jpg]].

Parliamentary copyright was created by the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 and its duration rules are the same as for Crown copyright materials created after 30 August 1989. Some Parliamentary material is covered by the [https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament/open-parliament-licence/ Open Parliament Licence] (with [https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament/ exceptions]). The OPL serves the same function in the system of Parliamentary copyright as the Open Government Licence (OGL) does for Crown Copyright.

# <divspan lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">If the work was published before 30 August 1989 and the author died more than 20 years before publication then copyright expires 50 years after publication.</span>

# <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">If the work was published duringbefore 30 August 1989 and the author's lifetimedied less than 20 years before publication then copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author.</span>

# <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">If the work was not published before 30 August 1989 and the author died more thanafter 20 years before publication1968 then copyright expires 5070 years after publicationthe death of the author.</span>

</div>{{anchor|TAG}}

Accordingly, the ''Copyright, Designs and Patent Act of 1988'' empowers the exclusive rights of the authors. This means, unless there is a signed agreement transferingor deed assigning the copyright to someone else, the copyright in a commissioned work since August 1, 1989 is retained by the author or the person who created or designed the work. There may be some exceptions to this rule, however. For example, the commissioner holds the copyright if they may have "an implied licence to use the work", at least for the purposes of commission, and if the artist made the work while employed.{{Clarify|date=April 2024}}

</div>

<noinclude>{{CRT shortcut|TAG|United Kingdom|anchor=no}}

**{{tl|OS OpenData}} – this tag is for Ordnance Survey maps published in the UK.</span>

The UK's Open Government Licence (OGL) (view in English or Welsh) is a simple set of terms and conditions that facilitates the re-use of a wide range of public sector information free of charge. Since 2010, almost all information owned by the UK Crown is offered for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence. The licence is also used by other bodies, including local government.

*{{tl|OGL3}} <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">– The latest version</span>

{{anchor|CUR}}
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">

<noinclude>{{CRT shortcut|CUR|UK|anchor=no}}</noinclude>

</noinclude><div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">

</div>{{anchor|FOP}}

The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, ''Copinger and Skone James'', suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist.<ref>''Copinger and Skone James on Copyright'' (18th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2021) vol 1, para 3-155.</ref> Evidence of the intentions of the maker are relevant, and according to the House of Lords case of ''Hensher -v- Restawile'' [1976] AC 64, it is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art. It is not necessary for the work to be describable as 'fine art'.

In ''Hensher -v- Restawile'', some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making.

Other works that have been held (by courts in common law jurisdictions outside the UK) to fall under this definition include hand-knitted woollen sweaters, fabric with a highly textured surface including 3D elements, a range of pottery and items of dinnerware.

The cases are, respectively, ''Bonz -v- Cooke'' [1994] 3 NZLR 216 (New Zealand), ''Coogi Australia -v- HyrdrosportHydrosport'' (1988) 157 ALR 247 (Australia), ''Walter Enterprises -v- Kearns'' (Zimbabwe) noted at [1990] 4 EntLR E-61, and ''Commissioner of Taxation -v- Murray'' (1990) 92 ALR 671 (Australia).

===== Digital copies of images =====

*According{{quote|<span tolang="en" thedir="ltr" Courtclass="mw-content-ltr">... ofaccording Justiceto ofestablished thecase Europeanlaw, Unionthe whichcourts hashave effectsaid in UK law,that copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’sauthor's own ‘intellectual'intellectual creation’creation'. Given this criteriacriterion, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’'original'. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.</span>}}

{{NotOKNotMark}} for a typical signature. The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low, and it is easily arguable that personal signatures are entitled to copyright protection. Under United Kingdom law, a signature may be protectable as a graphic work (a type of artistic work). Artistic works are protected regardless of artistic merit. There are various sources that point in that direction, including the following:

==CitationsPrzypisy==

|accessdate=20192024-03-2924

|title=Factsheet: Sculpture and Works of Artistic Craftmanship on Public Display |publisher=Design and Artists Copyright Society}}</ref>

<ref name="IPOFuture-2014/1"Edge>{{cite web |titleaccessdate=Copyright2019-03-29 Notice|url=http: digital images, photographs and the internet //www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1489.html