Separate publication online uphead

A European court ruling has underlined that there is a separate publication in online archives.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has in its formal statement ruled that the UK libel law, which says an Internet archive of a paper publication is a separate publication, is OK. Publishers, editors, writers and sources can therefore be sued twice: once for on paper and once for the online archive of the paper.

This has been the position of UK courts for a long time. It all goes back to an 1840s case: the Duke of Brunswick. Now it involves The Times and a Russian. The Russian objected to an article in the paper headed “Second Russian Link to Money Laundering”. The Russian sued. Then sued again for the article appearing in the online archive.

This is a restriction on the freedom of speech to have an online article, argued The Times. Such archives are mighty useful, says the ECHR. But they are a separate publication.

The Times pointed to the US law which chucked out the Duke of Brunswick ruling as long ago as the 1940s. In US law there is only one publication, not two separate ones.

The Telegraph has been hit by this double dipping in the past. So be warned: take it out of the archive when there’s a problem.

Pity the ECHR didn’t take the opportunity to really examine English and Welsh libel law. It could have done us all a service. But then the anti-European papers would be screaming about European interference: quite an irony.

Double publication online and on paper unheld

A European court ruling has underlined that there is a separate publication in online archives.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled in a new judgement that the UK libel law, which says an Internet archive of a paper publication is a separate publication, is OK. Publishers, editors, writers and sources can therefore be sued twice: once for on paper and once for the online archive of the paper.

This has been the position of UK courts for a long time. It all goes back to an 1840s case: the Duke of Brunswick. Now it involves The Times and a Russian. The Russian objected to an article in the paper headed “Second Russian Link to Money Laundering”. The Russian sued. Then sued again for the article appearing in the online archive.

This is a restriction on the freedom of speech to have an online article, argued The Times. Such archives are mighty useful, says the ECHR. But they are a separate publication.

The Times pointed to the US law which chucked out the Duke of Brunswick ruling as long ago as the 1940s. In US law there is only one publication, not two separate ones.

The Telegraph has been hit by this double dipping in the past. So be warned: take it out of the archive when there’s a problem.

Pity the ECHR didn’t take the opportunity to really examine English and Welsh libel law. It could have done us all a service. But then the anti-European papers would be screaming about European interference: quite an irony.

Copyright going strong since 1709

It’s remarkable that the fundamentals of a law passed in 1709 is still fit for the 21st century. I’m talking about copyright.

The PPA has got its act together to respond to the Government’s Copyright the Future document.
Copyright fit for purpose
Basically it says that IP, particularly copyright, is “fundamentally fit for purpose in the digital age”. Any large reforms would cause uncertainty.

The first copyright act I can trace was passed in England in 1709. It was part of then opening up of society after the 1688 Glorious Revolution. I bang on about that on my media law courses. They didn’t think they were going to get a dose of English history, but they do.

We have to see copyright historically. The Act was passed in 1709 to protect the property of printers/publishers. And it is still about property, whatever the media. That’s why the PPA says it is still fit for purpose.

Book plug
You can see more on this in the chapter “Inequalities in the Globalised Knowledge-based Economy” which I wrote in the book “The Myths of Technology”. Published by Peter Lang.

The PPA is right in saying that copyright needs to be clarified rather than torn up. Where is the real boundary to be set? The boundary between “the public” which needs protection and “the public” which wants to use material.

WIPO sets copyright framework
The UK could not contemplate wholesale changes in copyright because we are a member of the World Intellectual Property Organisation. And WIPO has set out the copyright framework which is being implemented worldwide.