Using the lockdown to create content at home? Here are some things to think about…
The Coronavirus crisis, and the corresponding lockdown, has meant that an extraordinary number of people are either working from home, are furloughed, or for whatever reason have a lot of extra time on their hands. It is no surprise therefore that there has been a spike in the amount of creative content being developed by individuals at home for consumption online. Creative ‘works’ such as videos, music, images, literary works, software code, paintings, sculptures, and even some everyday items, if they are ‘works of artistic craftsmanship’ are protectable by the law of copyright.
But what are the risks involved in this? Did you know that in certain circumstances individuals may not own the rights to the content they create? Even if they do it alone, from the comfort of their own home? And, even if you own the rights, are you at risk of a copyright infringement claim if you use, incorporate or replicate content made by third parties?
Ownership of rights – is it in the course of your employment?
This is particularly relevant for home workers and their employers because under English law, the intellectual property rights in ‘works’ created by employees, during the course of their employment, automatically belong to their employer.
Given that the boundaries of work time vs personal time are now somewhat blurred, and that many people have employer owned equipment at home with them, care must be taken to separate ‘work product’ from the creative content they produce in their own capacity. What constitutes ‘during the course of employment’ can be a complicated question – but the following are all potential red flags: (i) if individuals are using their employer’s equipment, (ii) if the content they are creating is similar to, or part of, what they generally create as part of their job, or (iii) if they are ‘creating’ during normal work hours.
For example, even though I am writing this very article from the comfort of my living room, at 8pm, I am doing it on my work laptop and it is very much part of my role as an IP lawyer, so the copyright in the article belongs to my employer. If, after finishing this, I use my own laptop to film a video of me playing an original musical composition on the pots and pans in my kitchen (don’t worry, I won’t!) then I will own the rights in that video. However, it is rarely as clear cut as these two examples.
With this in mind, it is advisable for employees to remember to separate work from other activities and to be clear on what falls under which category. If there is doubt (from either side) it is probably worth having an upfront discussion before content is created – acknowledgment from an employer that a certain activity falls outside of an employee’s scope of work should be enough to protect the employee’s creations. Both employers and employees should also check their employment contracts, as this may assist with ascertaining what belongs to whom.
Employers should be equally (if not more) concerned about the content created by contractors or external agencies. Although there is no change in the law here, it is always useful to have on the radar that, from a copyright perspective, the same rules do not apply to non-employees. Therefore in any agreement involving the creation of protectable content, the ownership of the copyright should be explicitly dealt with and clearly set out.
The legal landscape gets even more complicated where two or more people collaborate in their creativity. If a work is created by the collaboration of several people then it could be a ‘work of joint authorship’ and the copyright will belong jointly to all of the creators. Similarly if a studio or other online platform acts as a ‘content aggregator’ for multiple contributors, they will either be joint authors or the underlying rights in the resulting product may be split between them.
In these circumstances, the consent of all authors is required for any one of them to deal with the work. Thus, by using the ‘work’, an individual creator (or their employer, or the entity that thinks they have acquired the rights from that creator) could well infringe the rights of all their co-collaborators by using the content.
Third party content – are you infringing third party rights?
Most people think that, if you are sitting at home, churning out amateur content through your mobile device, for your own entertainment and that of your followers, you are immune to claims of copyright infringement. Unfortunately, this is not correct; even if you are not making a profit from your activities.
The owner of the copyright in a work has the exclusive right to deal with that work (this includes copying, performing, making an adaption of, and otherwise communicating the work to the public). If you do any of these acts to a ‘substantial part’ of a protectable work, you are risking a claim of infringement. Contrary to popular belief, just because someone has already put something online (even if it is accessible by all), it does not mean that everyone else is free to use that content.
Of course these rights are only as strong as the ability, or will, of the owners to enforce them (and it might be reputationally damaging for an artist, studio or company, to go after individuals for performing their songs, for example, or recreating their paintings on social media), especially, in the current climate, if the output of the copied work is for “a good cause”, e.g. raising funds for the NHS. However, there is a risk that they will – this is particularly relevant to influencers who generate substantial income from their online presence.
In practical terms, there are many blurred lines to consider here, for example if you happen to have a poster or painting on your wall, which inadvertently makes it onto a video, this may be ok as it could be covered by the ‘incidental inclusion’ defence. There are also defences for criticism, review, quotation or news reporting as well as caricature, parody or pastiche. So, for instance, whilst it would in most cases be an infringement to read a protectable book out on a live stream– it probably wouldn’t be an infringement to conduct a review of it (even if you quote brief passages)
It is also of note that formal court action does not always need to be taken to pursue ‘infringers’. For most (if not all) online platforms, uploading infringing content will inevitably be a breach of the terms and conditions imposed on users. It is relatively easy for rights-owners to make a complaint to the platforms and the punishment for this can include temporary bans or even deletion of accounts – which could be catastrophic for some users, such as influencers.
The Future of Property Careers
Join to our panel discussion and Q&A with industry leaders on the range of opportunities within the property and construction sector.
COVID-19 Vaccination – can an employer make it compulsory for employees?
We review what legal issues to take into account when considering to make vaccination compulsory as an employer.
Music to our ears? Well, perhaps not for Apple.
A feud first began when the music streaming giant, Spotify, filed a complaint against music streaming provide rand competitor, Apple Inc.
Linking ESG and Executive Pay
How does a business go about embedding a focus on strong ESG performance into the structures and culture of its organisation?
National Security and Investment Act granted Royal Assent
The Act establishes a new regime for the review of mergers, acquisitions and other transactions that could threaten national security.
Recent Trends In Firewall Legislation: BVI, Bermuda And Gibraltar
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Waverton on acquisition of Cornerstone Asset Management
Established in July 2010 and with offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow, Cornerstone offers wealth management and financial planning advice.
What do the new Debt Respite Scheme Regulations mean for Landlords and Tenants?
This will provide legal protection from creditors in the form of either a breathing space or a mental health crisis moratorium.
Charles Russell Speechlys promotes five to Partner
The promotions are effective 1 May 2021 and are accompanied by one Legal Director and 15 Senior Associate promotions.
Risk allocation in commercial leases: the High Court considers rent suspension, insurance and frustration arguments
Read our summary of the full judgement on the latest Covid arrears case.
Charles Russell Speechlys boosts private wealth offering with the hire of an international tax team
Robert Reymond will be joined at the firm by Leigh Nicoll, Emma Tyrrell and Oliver Cooper.
Proposed Takeover Code Amendments – Key Changes
The Consultation Paper has now been followed by a corresponding response paper which made certain modifications to the initial proposals.
Competition and Markets Authority announces review of the EU vertical agreements block exemption
The UK Competition and Markets Authority is reviewing the future application of the EU vertical agreements block exemption in the UK.
Playing Copycat – Why have M&S begun legal action against Aldi over Colin the Caterpillar?
M&S’s chocolate caterpillar was the first of its kind to land on our supermarket shelves, over 30 years ago.
Building Back Better: Future Gazing
What’s next for the hospitality industry post-pandemic?
Building Back Better: Re-examining your proposition
Why hospitality businesses should re-examine their proposition now
Building Back Better: Real Estate and Restructuring
How and why should hospitality businesses re-structure post pandemic?
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Fudco Partnership on sale to Exponent-backed Vibrant Foods
Fudco is a family-owned business selling South Asian ethnic foods in UK and Europe.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Polar Technology on investment by BGF
Polar Technology Management Group is a holding company for engineering businesses operating at the leading edge of technology.
Electrical safety standards in the private rented sector from 1 April 2021
The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector will apply to existing specified tenancies from 1 April 2021.