Writing articles for MEW

Aha, on closer inspection it seems ALCS collects royalties from schools and libraries and is not as I thought was being discussed a body that seeks out unlawful plagiarists etc. But still a nice little earner worth having by the sound of it. Presumeably if you publish an article in MEW etc and a library lends out a copy of the mag, you get a slice of the pie. Nice. Thanks.

The Morton's agreement is far simpler, it only has three sections about copyright:

1. You hereby give Mortons Media Group Limited ("Mortons" a licence to reproduce the Material once
only in the issue of the UK edition of the publication for which the Material is supplied on sale worldwide in
print and/or digital format.
2. You warrant that you own or have the right to licence the Material to Mortons and that Mortons' use of it in
accordance with this Agreement does not infringe any intellectual property or proprietary rights of any third
party. You waive the benefit of any moral rights to which you might otherwise be entitled to in relation to the
Material in respect only of Mortons' permitted use hereunder.
3. You agree to allow Mortons the right (i) to store, edit and adapt the Material for publication purposes and
(ii) to licence photocopying, scanning, downloading of the Material (in the context of the publication only) in
electronic or other forms and other normal use for the purpose of information or study or as otherwise
permitted by copyright law.

Basically it's a licence for Mortons to use writers' material in their publications.website etc. but has no impact on the writers' copyright in the original material. Much simpler.

Neil

There is a £1,000 de-minimus on TURNOVER that allows anyone up to get that amount without having to declare it for tax purposes. Could be writing for magazines, doing car boot sales, a bit of helping out friends with odd jobs...

Payment to charity is now easy enough for MEW as long as authors keep it simple.

Copyright in thread postings stays with the author as well. You are licensing the site owners to use it when you post it (otherwise it couldn't appear on the forum!) but it doesn't stop you re-using it elsewhere.

Neil

Dear Neil,

You are probably the best person to ask this question concerning copyright.

I have always assumed that the drawings supplied in an article are covered by the copyright on the article. My reasoning being that without the drawings there is no article. Is this assumption correct?

Secondly anyone making their own drawings from the article drawings to further their business, ie market the item as a product, is breaking the copyright laws. Am I also right on this one?

Regards

Gray,

The second issue, someone actually making the device and selling it, sounds like more of a patent issue. Copyright on the drawings applies only to the drawings, I believe. But Intellectual Property law is an increasingly complex area.

Intellectual Property law, especially copyright law, has always been complex, and copyright law varies considerably from country to country. I speak as someone who practised professionally in this area for 40 years. There are seldom any easy answers, but lots of opinions on how the law should be applied. Copyright in engineering drawings (being perhaps non-artistic) has been a much litigated topic. Lately there is the issue of computer generated drawings - who is the author/owner?

Hopper, making articles to a copyright drawing may be actionable as copyright infringement, but you would need very deep pockets to test the law.

May I commend the publishers of MEW for having what appears to be a very sensible and fair agreement for authors, unlike so many others I have seen.

Hooper, John,

Thanks for your input. I agree there may well be a patent issue in the second instance.

I am more concerned with someone using the drawing from an article, or book to produce "His or Her" own drawings to work from for profit. I would have thought this to be a copyright infringement against the publisher, and the author.

Taking a dimension from a published drawing and using it in AutoCad, or similar, is still copying to me. The finished product will be no different to the original.

I have always assumed any published designs to be for personal use only by the purchaser of the magazine or book. Making one or two for friends does not bother me either.

Regards

Gray,

My experience of IPR relates to software and matches John Halfpenny's comments. Unbelievably complicated! There used to be a few firms based in Switzerland who specialised in buying the rights to older software patents in hope of finding wordings that would allow them to demand cake from profitable vendors. Microsoft faced a number of challenges to their right to the Windows GUI, fought some in court, and I believe paid the Danegeld whenever going to law was risky. Often risky because juries are exceptionally thick when it comes to understanding anything technical!

Broadly though, IPR only matters if someone cares. No one cares if I photocopy a best-seller unless I foolishly boast about it on the internet, make copies available to others, or start selling them. However, steer clear of Thomas the Tank Engine, Harry Potter, and Disney characters because these and similar are protected aggressively on principle. Otherwise, the trigger seems to be the amount of money involved. Anyone earning worthwhile sums by exploiting someone else's IPR can expect to meet lawyers, trading standards officers, and policemen! If little or no money is being made, then the copyright owner might not care,

Gambling on the attitude of the copyright holder is a bit dodgy because only they know what they think. There will be trouble if they're planning to use the material themselves or are fed up with being ripped off and want to make an example of someone!

Older, forgotten and unfashionable IPR is safer than current expensive products. Copying is rather easy to do and mostty harmless. My golden rule is 'don't take the p*ss'.

Dave

Gray, the point you make is typical in a claim of copyright infringement of an engineering drawing, but not always persuasive. If you are minded, there is an interesting thread of cases starting with BL v Armstrong concerning the bend co-ordinates of a car exhaust pipe - and more recently Dyson v Qualtex regarding vacuum cleaners. Wikipedia has a fair summary. These cases are however complicated by a secondary argument about the right to repair an article with pattern parts - which is the driving commercial factor in that litigation.

There is no automatic right to copy drawings to make an article for personal use, but who would know? However, I would have thought authors publishing detailed drawings in MEW must expect them to be used.

Hi John,

I have sent you a PM which explains the situation better and does not commandeer this post.

Regards

Gray,

I can't help thinking that the concept of copyright has beeen completely destroyed by certain large 'media' companies in the United states that seem to have been able to inflate what was originally designed to protect the living of the author during his working life into protecting the profits of a deathless organisation until the heat death of the universe.

I would rather that copyright protection had exactly the same term as patent protection and also the same tests for originality. (not those tests that seem to apply in the abovementioned nation)

Edited By Mark Rand on 14/08/2022 15:18:54

Two points Mark (I agree with your sentiment) 1. US copyright law is very different to UK, and 2. US companies assume their law is universal, and use lawyers to bully the rest of the world accordingly.

Hi Graham,

Copyright stays with the person who produced the drawings.

Intellectual property in a design is more complicated. Rather than copyright you generally have the choice of a patent (for a novel principle of operation) or a registered design if you want to protect your particular implementation.

My understanding is that to protect a published design you would need to register it:

www.gov.uk/topic/intellectual-property/designs

Without such a step or similar action as described on that page I don't think you can protect your design from being made by someone else. Also, I think there's a 'distinctiveness' test.

Neil

Edit - made a correction!

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 16/08/2022 15:43:51

Hi Neil,

Thanks for your response. It has gone someway to confirm my understanding of the situation. As I do not own the design in question these days, registering it will be down to the owner. Given that it has been in the public domain for so long I doubt this will be possible now.

I never considered a patent at the time I designed the item, as to me it was not novel enough to warrant a patent and to be honest I did not have the funds back then to pursue this avenue.

Regards

Gray,