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

{{Translatable template|Infobox copyright rules

|Flag = Flag of the United Kingdom.svg

|Government = <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">[[#CROWN|Crown copyright]]</span>

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

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.

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>

* <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">For commissioned works created from 1 June 1957 to 31 July 1989, copyright stays with the commissioner when the works are "commissioned", underper the ''Copyright Act 1956''. "Commissioning" is defined here as "the payment or agreement to pay for a work with money or something of equivalent value." This means, the copyright in a work made by an artist while employed remains with the employer (the commissioner). Works made by artists under employment by a newspaper, magazine, or periodical owner, but solely for the purpose of publishing in the said publications, are likewise covered. In cases of other uses of commissioned works, the artists retain the ownership of copyright.</span>

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

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.

<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 =====

{{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:

* <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">The practitioners' text ''Copinger and Skone James on Copyright'' mentions, at para. 2-23, an unreported decision that a signature combined with aan (apparently copyrighted) shield device can be accorded artistic copyright.</span>

|accessdate=20192024-03-2924

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

{{translatable template|CRT list2}}