Irish Copyright Law - Criticism or Review

cregser

First off, if there's law forum, I couldn't find it and won't mind if this thread is moved there (would be glad actually). Secondly, as far as I am aware, I am discussing something completely legal - if not lock this thread up and throw away the key. Also, this has come up on boards before but I'd just like it confirmed.

I've just read this:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA28Y2000S51.html

Does it mean that I (for example) am legally allowed to create a copy of say a movie DVD or music CD as long as I intend to review or criticise it accompanied with sufficient acknowledgement?

So I can freely download movies or soundtracks and give my opinion on them in say a newspaper, a blog, or internet forum, and that is perfectly legal as long as I mention the title and author?

Also, since it says "shall not infringe ANY copyright" does that mean (and this is a grey area at best) that I can actually distribute the copyright material in a collaborative effort to review and criticize the work?

This copyright law is 6 years old - around the time when Napster was hitting the headlines. Have there been specific updates to this law? Or have others got a different interpretation of what it says? Because my interpretation leaves the potential for a "reviewing" organisation to form and legally distribute copyright material amongst fellow members much like Wikipedia does with information and Boards.ie does with discussion and chit-chat (couldn't think of better analogies).

pete

cregser wrote:

Does it mean that I (for example) am legally allowed to create a copy of say a movie DVD or music CD as long as I intend to review or criticise it accompanied with sufficient acknowledgement?

No, it means you can use excerpts from a copyrighted work "for the purposes of criticism or review of that or another work or of a performance of a work" without getting busted for breach of copyright, provided you clearly acknowledge the copyright while doing so. It is almost certainly not carte blanche to download the latest movies for the purposes of writing reviews on your blog.

I think.

edit: Note also that "fair dealing" is defined as

... the making use of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, film, sound recording, broadcast, cable programme, non-electronic original database or typographical arrangement of a published edition which has already been lawfully made available to the public, for a purpose and to an extent which will not unreasonably prejudice the interests of the owner of the copyright.

Nice try, buh.

cregser

Interesting... you think but you're not sure because the act doesn't actually tell you... i think

So your saying a film critic must pay to see the film and then he can freely review it, supplying extracts (maybe clips on his tv show) to his audience?

But to me, that isn't distinctly defined. The act defines a number of rights of the copyright holder such as reproduction, distribution etc. and calls them "acts restricted by copyright". And then says that reviewing the work "shall not infringe any copyright".

So in the process of reviewing, doesn't the reviewer need to obtain a copy of the work? And does this act not allow him to freely do so?

And you're citing an extract from the fair dealing for research and private study persons, not reviewers. :

(3) The copying by a person, other than the researcher or private student, is not fair dealing where—

(a) in the case of a librarian or archivist, he or she does anything which is not permitted under section 63, or

(b) in any other case, the person copying knows or has reason to believe that the copying will result in copies of substantially the same material being provided to more than one person at approximately the same time and for substantially the same purpose.

What does that mean! It says "other than the researcher or private student", so it doesn't apply to them? And if "reason to believe", "approximately" and "substantially the same" aren't open to interpretation, I don't know what is.

To me the Act to looks like a rushed job to allow librarians to do their job and copyright holders to licence public performances of their work. But it leaves everyone else in the dark.

pete

cregser wrote:

So your saying a film critic must pay to see the film and then he can freely review it, supplying extracts (maybe clips on his tv show) to his audience?

Essentially yes, apart from the "must pay to see". I'd imagine broadcast rights are treated separately, but I don't know.

So in the process of reviewing, doesn't the reviewer need to obtain a copy of the work? And does this act not allow him to freely do so?

Obviously yes, and obviously no. This section of the act states under what criteria copyright material may be reproduced for review purposes - nowhere does it state that the "reviewer" may obtain or make an illegal copy of the work for review purposes.

What does that mean! It says "other than the researcher or private student", so it doesn't apply to them? And if "reason to believe", "approximately" and "substantially the same" aren't open to interpretation, I don't know what is.

It means what it says: "The copying by a person, other than the researcher or private student, is not fair dealing where [...] the person copying knows or has reason to believe that the copying will result in copies of substantially the same material being provided to more than one person at approximately the same time and for substantially the same purpose.".

I would read this as meaning an individual has the right to make copies of a copyright work (edit: which they own) for their own private use, but makes distributing said copies to anyone else an offence. The vague language you refer to is pretty standard legalese.

I think you're confusing your fair use / fair dealing rights regarding legally obtained a copyright work (eg either purchased or given for review purposes) with a perceived loophole you'd like to have. In other words, you can't use Irish copyright law to avoid the fact that you've downloaded an illegally distributed copyright work to begin with. But that's just my interpretation, and i'm not going to pretend to have read the whole act. You should really ask a lawyer.

Preferably before you find out you're due in court.