Amendments to section 30

[Halie0201]

Hello,

I noticed that recently section 30 is changed. It seems that with the new terms, it will be easier to become "fair dealing".

Copyright in a work is not infringed by the use of a quotation from the work (whether for criticism or review or otherwise) provided that—
(a)the work has been made available to the public,
(b)the use of the quotation is fair dealing with the work,
(c)the extent of the quotation is no more than is required by the specific purpose for which it is used, and
(d)the quotation is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement (unless this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise).

I am not sure about the meaning of term c. How to understand "the extent of the quotation is no more than is required by the specific purpose for which it is used"?

For example, if I quote some short clips which are extracted from BBC documentary "Empire" in a non-commercial documentary talking about the history of industrial revolution in British, is it a fair dealing?

p.s. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions- ... ir-dealing
According to the explanation on the UK gov website, I understand if it looks "reasonable" to quote, it should be fine. For example, the clips are very short and not offend the copyright owner's marketing profit. The clips are very related to the history I want to talk about. And credit and attribution should be added. Besides, the final project is not for sale or commercial usage.

[AndyJ]

Hi Halie,

The 'no more than is necessary' rule is something the courts have developed over the years, and the guidance is based on the current thinking on the subject. It is all relative to why (the purpose) you want to quote that particular work in the first place. If the quoted part amplifies or expands on the point you wish to make then you have greater leeway than if the clip merely illustrates the point you have already made with your own words. We've discussed that part a number of times before here, but if you you take a commonsense or reasonable approach and remember that this is supposed to be 'fair' dealing, you should be fine.
The only difficulty here is that we have no cases which examine the new exceptions in order to see how the courts will interpret the new quotation exception, as opposed to, say, the older criticism and review, or reporting current events exceptions.

[Halie0201]

When we judge whether a fair dealing is true or not, does it make differences the which kind of organizations used the materials? For example, if the copyrighted material is fairly used in a news report, does the news report have to be published by the government or the organizations founded by the government? Can ordinary people or company report news or publish documentary?

[AndyJ]

Hi Halie,

The origin of this exception lies in Article 6 of the Berne Convention, which was first agreed in 1886, which specifically permitted the copying of "articles from newspapers or periodicals [ ...] articles of political discussion [...] [and] reproduction of news of the day or miscellaneous information." Obviously things have moved on during the intervening 132 years, but there was no limitation then or now on who might be able to take advantage of this exception. So, yes you can re-publish news and current affairs, but you need to beware of taking too much of the actual text of, say, a news article or documentary commentary. What the exception is referring to are the facts which make up the news item, so it is fair dealing to report the gist of a story, sticking to the facts, while avoiiding too much of the comment or journalese of the particular source you are relying upon. And of course the other part of fair dealing requires that you provide a credit for the source(s) you use in this way, unless this is impossible in the context of the medium used to re-tell the story.