Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Copyright on an Excel Spreadsheet
2,335 views
Skip to first unread message
Davidm
Jun 19, 2013, 6:50:02 AM6/19/13
to
Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
recording membership information.
At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
the spreadsheet.
(this is in the UK, England)
Thanks for any advice,
David
spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
recording membership information.
At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
the spreadsheet.
(this is in the UK, England)
Thanks for any advice,
David
Roland Perry
Jun 19, 2013, 9:00:04 AM6/19/13
to
In message <3f23s85jqaq47inmk...@4ax.com>, at 11:50:02 on
Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Davidm <davidm_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>recording membership information.
the question that might be better to ask is "assuming there is a
copyright, who owns it". It may not be the ex-member.
--
Roland Perry
Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Davidm <davidm_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
probably.
>spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>recording membership information.
copyright, who owns it". It may not be the ex-member.
--
Roland Perry
newshound
Jun 19, 2013, 8:35:02 AM6/19/13
to
did it display a copyright notice? Also, if I were concerned over
retaining the IP of a spreadsheet I would certainly have hidden the
workings with password protection.
Peter Crosland
Jun 19, 2013, 8:40:01 AM6/19/13
to
On 19/06/2013 11:50, Davidm wrote:
> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> recording membership information.
>
> At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
> come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
> the spreadsheet.
Does the Charity own a legal copy of Excel and under what circumstances
> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> recording membership information.
>
> At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
> come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
> the spreadsheet.
was the design done?
--
Peter Crosland
Roland Perry
Jun 19, 2013, 10:00:02 AM6/19/13
to
In message <I-adna_nRbOeOFzM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
13:35:02 on Wed, 19 Jun 2013, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com>
remarked:
--
Roland Perry
13:35:02 on Wed, 19 Jun 2013, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com>
remarked:
>There's IP in the construction of formulae so I don't see why not. But
>did it display a copyright notice?
Not required in the UK - that's a USA-ism.
>did it display a copyright notice?
--
Roland Perry
R. Mark Clayton
Jun 19, 2013, 9:30:02 AM6/19/13
to
"Davidm" <davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f23s85jqaq47inmk...@4ax.com...
> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> recording membership information.
If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> recording membership information.
GB
Jun 19, 2013, 11:00:05 AM6/19/13
to
On 19/06/2013 14:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Davidm" <davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f23s85jqaq47inmk...@4ax.com...
>> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>>
>> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>> recording membership information.
>
> If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
Does it make any difference if he was employed on a voluntary basis?
> "Davidm" <davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f23s85jqaq47inmk...@4ax.com...
>> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>>
>> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>> recording membership information.
>
> If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
newshound
Jun 19, 2013, 10:55:02 AM6/19/13
to
website I run for a charity, not to protect my IP but to give them a bit
of protection against the (unlikely) event of mis-use of text or images.
R. Mark Clayton
Jun 19, 2013, 11:40:02 AM6/19/13
to
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:51c1c69d$0$1098$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
grated you a license to use it. Without consideration there is no contact.
Message has been deleted
polygonum
Jun 19, 2013, 12:25:02 PM6/19/13
to
On 19/06/2013 17:10, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> What bit of protection does your notice add that would be absent without it?
Protection against it being ripped off in the USA!
Am I right that this requires use of the © symbol and not (c)?
--
Rod
> What bit of protection does your notice add that would be absent without it?
Protection against it being ripped off in the USA!
Am I right that this requires use of the © symbol and not (c)?
--
Rod
Nogood Boyo
Jun 19, 2013, 1:50:02 PM6/19/13
to
On Jun 19, 2:30 pm, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> "Davidm" <davidm_uk-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
made available as a convenient way of helping the client but is not a
condition of the appointment, could the copyright stay with the
consultant who devised it?
If so, what's something like that likely to be worth, if the
spreadsheet is pretty good (but not exceptionally clever), very
helpful and beyond the capability of the client to replicate it?
[rhetorical question] How could the consultant tell if the client
continued to use it after termination of the appointment? Could he, in
principle, ask for the return of all electronic copies, leaving only
hard copies for reference? Pretty difficult to achieve that in
practice, as there are probably backups all over the place...
Nogood Boyo
wrote:
> "Davidm" <davidm_uk-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3f23s85jqaq47inmk...@4ax.com...
>
> > Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> > spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> > uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
> > The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> > right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> > recording membership information.
>
> If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
>
If the payment is for consultancy and the spreadsheet is devised and
> news:3f23s85jqaq47inmk...@4ax.com...
>
> > Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> > spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> > uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
> > The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> > right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> > recording membership information.
>
> If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
>
made available as a convenient way of helping the client but is not a
condition of the appointment, could the copyright stay with the
consultant who devised it?
If so, what's something like that likely to be worth, if the
spreadsheet is pretty good (but not exceptionally clever), very
helpful and beyond the capability of the client to replicate it?
[rhetorical question] How could the consultant tell if the client
continued to use it after termination of the appointment? Could he, in
principle, ask for the return of all electronic copies, leaving only
hard copies for reference? Pretty difficult to achieve that in
practice, as there are probably backups all over the place...
Nogood Boyo
Message has been deleted
Chris R
Jun 19, 2013, 3:35:01 PM6/19/13
to
>
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
> news:LYWdnW9_mIpDLFzM...@bt.com...
>
>
> "Davidm" <davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f23s85jqaq47inmk...@4ax.com...
> > Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> > spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> > uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
> >
> > The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> > right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> > recording membership information.
>
> If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
>
If he was paid *and he was an employee* the copyright would [normaly] be his
>
> "Davidm" <davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f23s85jqaq47inmk...@4ax.com...
> > Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> > spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> > uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
> >
> > The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> > right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> > recording membership information.
>
> If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
>
/ her employer's.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Neil Williams
Jun 19, 2013, 4:15:02 PM6/19/13
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> the question that might be better to ask is "assuming there is a
> copyright, who owns it". It may not be the ex-member.
There is always one, even if not claimed through a statement. The only
> the question that might be better to ask is "assuming there is a
> copyright, who owns it". It may not be the ex-member.
question is who owns it.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
Mark Goodge
Jun 19, 2013, 4:35:01 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:50:02 +0100, Davidm put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
You don't "get" copyright; it either exists or it doesn't. It may, of
course, require the intervention of a court to decide whether it does or
does not exist, but the court isn't creating or granting the copyright,
merely recognising it.
Anyway, and that aside, yes, Excel is a sufficiently complex programming
system for works created using it to be subject to copyright. The fact that
it uses nothing other that standard functions is irrelevant; I could just
as easily create copyright work using only the standard functions of
Javascript, Ruby or PHP.
However, the work would need to be of sufficient complexity to be original;
if someone else with the same skills, given the same task with the same
data, would be likely to come up with the same solution then it's unlikely
to pass that particular test.
There's also the question, as others have said, about who owns the
copyright. If he was a paid employee at the time he created it then his
employer will normally own it, not him.
>The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>recording membership information.
>
>At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
>come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
>the spreadsheet.
If it was me then I'd just carry on using it[1], and leave the onus on him
to take action if he cares that much and his own legal advice is that it's
justifiable. I certainly wouldn't spend money on getting legal advice
myself unless and until I got a letter from his solicitor. In the meantime,
of course, it wouldn't do any harm to redesign it anyway. It's generally
not a good idea to be reliant on software created by an ex-employee or
ex-volunteer if you can avoid it, not least because you need to have
someone current you can turn to if it goes wrong or you need to improve it.
[1] Well, actually, if it was me then I'd find something better for the job
than Excel. But that's a different matter.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
typed:
>Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
course, require the intervention of a court to decide whether it does or
does not exist, but the court isn't creating or granting the copyright,
merely recognising it.
Anyway, and that aside, yes, Excel is a sufficiently complex programming
system for works created using it to be subject to copyright. The fact that
it uses nothing other that standard functions is irrelevant; I could just
as easily create copyright work using only the standard functions of
Javascript, Ruby or PHP.
However, the work would need to be of sufficient complexity to be original;
if someone else with the same skills, given the same task with the same
data, would be likely to come up with the same solution then it's unlikely
to pass that particular test.
There's also the question, as others have said, about who owns the
copyright. If he was a paid employee at the time he created it then his
employer will normally own it, not him.
>The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>recording membership information.
>
>At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
>come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
>the spreadsheet.
to take action if he cares that much and his own legal advice is that it's
justifiable. I certainly wouldn't spend money on getting legal advice
myself unless and until I got a letter from his solicitor. In the meantime,
of course, it wouldn't do any harm to redesign it anyway. It's generally
not a good idea to be reliant on software created by an ex-employee or
ex-volunteer if you can avoid it, not least because you need to have
someone current you can turn to if it goes wrong or you need to improve it.
[1] Well, actually, if it was me then I'd find something better for the job
than Excel. But that's a different matter.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Mark Goodge
Jun 19, 2013, 5:00:03 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:15:02 +0100, Neil Williams put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> the question that might be better to ask is "assuming there is a
>> copyright, who owns it". It may not be the ex-member.
>
>There is always one, even if not claimed through a statement. The only
>question is who owns it.
That's not necessarily true. Some things are de minimus as far as copyright
law is concerned. An Excel spreadsheet may fall in to that category; it
would depend entirely on what it actually consists of.
and typed:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> the question that might be better to ask is "assuming there is a
>> copyright, who owns it". It may not be the ex-member.
>
>There is always one, even if not claimed through a statement. The only
>question is who owns it.
law is concerned. An Excel spreadsheet may fall in to that category; it
would depend entirely on what it actually consists of.
Tim Jackson
Jun 19, 2013, 5:25:02 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:35:01 +0100, Chris R wrote...
(rather than an employee), then it is in everyone's interest to spell
out in the contract who is to own the copyright. The default position
otherwise is that the consultant owns it.
However, it is then likely that a court would imply conditions into the
contract to give the commissioning party rights to use the work. But
only as far as necessary to give effect to what they would both have
contemplated at the time. Robin Ray v. Classic FM
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/1998/333.html
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> >
> > "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
> > news:LYWdnW9_mIpDLFzM...@bt.com...
> >
> > "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
> > news:LYWdnW9_mIpDLFzM...@bt.com...
> >
> > If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
> >
> If he was paid *and he was an employee* the copyright would [normaly] be his
> / her employer's.
The moral being that if a consultant is commissioned to do the work
> >
> If he was paid *and he was an employee* the copyright would [normaly] be his
> / her employer's.
(rather than an employee), then it is in everyone's interest to spell
out in the contract who is to own the copyright. The default position
otherwise is that the consultant owns it.
However, it is then likely that a court would imply conditions into the
contract to give the commissioning party rights to use the work. But
only as far as necessary to give effect to what they would both have
contemplated at the time. Robin Ray v. Classic FM
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/1998/333.html
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Tim Jackson
Jun 19, 2013, 5:25:09 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:10:05 +0100, Anthony R. Gold wrote...
[copyright notice]
> What bit of protection does your notice add that would be absent
> without it?
It may help when you come to claim damages. The infringer would not be
able to escape damages by claiming that he had no reason to believe that
copyright subsisted in the work. See Copyright etc Act, section 97(1).
Having said that, I think that even if there is no copyright notice, an
infringer might often still find it difficult to convince a court of
this. It obviously depends on the particular facts of the case, though.
[copyright notice]
> What bit of protection does your notice add that would be absent
> without it?
able to escape damages by claiming that he had no reason to believe that
copyright subsisted in the work. See Copyright etc Act, section 97(1).
Having said that, I think that even if there is no copyright notice, an
infringer might often still find it difficult to convince a court of
this. It obviously depends on the particular facts of the case, though.
Mark Goodge
Jun 19, 2013, 5:35:02 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:25:09 +0100, Tim Jackson put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:10:05 +0100, Anthony R. Gold wrote...
>
>[copyright notice]
>
>> What bit of protection does your notice add that would be absent
>> without it?
>
>It may help when you come to claim damages. The infringer would not be
>able to escape damages by claiming that he had no reason to believe that
>copyright subsisted in the work. See Copyright etc Act, section 97(1).
I suspect, though, that this defence would really only work if the
infringer believed, albeit wrongly, that the work was old enough for
copyright to have expired. Mere ignorance of the fact that copyright is
automatic, and hence does not need to be asserted, would not suffice - as
many people who think it's OK to grab an image from the Internet and use it
on their own website have discovered, to their cost.
typed:
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:10:05 +0100, Anthony R. Gold wrote...
>
>[copyright notice]
>
>> What bit of protection does your notice add that would be absent
>> without it?
>
>It may help when you come to claim damages. The infringer would not be
>able to escape damages by claiming that he had no reason to believe that
>copyright subsisted in the work. See Copyright etc Act, section 97(1).
infringer believed, albeit wrongly, that the work was old enough for
copyright to have expired. Mere ignorance of the fact that copyright is
automatic, and hence does not need to be asserted, would not suffice - as
many people who think it's OK to grab an image from the Internet and use it
on their own website have discovered, to their cost.
Tim Jackson
Jun 19, 2013, 5:45:02 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:35:02 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote...
difficult to convince a court.
>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:25:09 +0100, Tim Jackson put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
> >[copyright notice]
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:25:09 +0100, Tim Jackson put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
> >
> >It may help when you come to claim damages. The infringer would not be
> >able to escape damages by claiming that he had no reason to believe that
> >copyright subsisted in the work. See Copyright etc Act, section 97(1).
>
> I suspect, though, that this defence would really only work if the
> infringer believed, albeit wrongly, that the work was old enough for
> copyright to have expired. Mere ignorance of the fact that copyright is
> automatic, and hence does not need to be asserted, would not suffice - as
> many people who think it's OK to grab an image from the Internet and use it
> on their own website have discovered, to their cost.
Yes, that's why I said that an infringer might often still find it
> >It may help when you come to claim damages. The infringer would not be
> >able to escape damages by claiming that he had no reason to believe that
> >copyright subsisted in the work. See Copyright etc Act, section 97(1).
>
> I suspect, though, that this defence would really only work if the
> infringer believed, albeit wrongly, that the work was old enough for
> copyright to have expired. Mere ignorance of the fact that copyright is
> automatic, and hence does not need to be asserted, would not suffice - as
> many people who think it's OK to grab an image from the Internet and use it
> on their own website have discovered, to their cost.
difficult to convince a court.
Percy Picacity
Jun 19, 2013, 5:55:02 PM6/19/13
to
On 2013-06-19 21:35:02 +0000, Mark Goodge said:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:25:09 +0100, Tim Jackson put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:10:05 +0100, Anthony R. Gold wrote...
>>
>> [copyright notice]
>>
>>> What bit of protection does your notice add that would be absent
>>> without it?
>>
>> It may help when you come to claim damages. The infringer would not be
>> able to escape damages by claiming that he had no reason to believe that
>> copyright subsisted in the work. See Copyright etc Act, section 97(1).
>
> I suspect, though, that this defence would really only work if the
> infringer believed, albeit wrongly, that the work was old enough for
> copyright to have expired. Mere ignorance of the fact that copyright is
> automatic, and hence does not need to be asserted, would not suffice - as
> many people who think it's OK to grab an image from the Internet and use it
> on their own website have discovered, to their cost.
>
> Mark
A relevant alternative might be a work so simple and obvious (such as a
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:25:09 +0100, Tim Jackson put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:10:05 +0100, Anthony R. Gold wrote...
>>
>> [copyright notice]
>>
>>> What bit of protection does your notice add that would be absent
>>> without it?
>>
>> It may help when you come to claim damages. The infringer would not be
>> able to escape damages by claiming that he had no reason to believe that
>> copyright subsisted in the work. See Copyright etc Act, section 97(1).
>
> I suspect, though, that this defence would really only work if the
> infringer believed, albeit wrongly, that the work was old enough for
> copyright to have expired. Mere ignorance of the fact that copyright is
> automatic, and hence does not need to be asserted, would not suffice - as
> many people who think it's OK to grab an image from the Internet and use it
> on their own website have discovered, to their cost.
>
> Mark
spreadsheet with the obvious columns, and the obvious arithmetic
applied) as to lead the defendant not to suspect that a copyright could
subsist in it.
--
Percy Picacity
Iain Archer
Jun 19, 2013, 6:00:06 PM6/19/13
to
Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 at
22:25:02:
member generously contributes expertise freely for the benefit of the
charity, then relationships sour. Could such a provison of software
then be deemed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be
anything other than the assignation of at least a permanent licence?
--
Iain Archer
22:25:02:
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:35:01 +0100, Chris R wrote...
>> >
>> > "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
>> > news:LYWdnW9_mIpDLFzM...@bt.com...
>> >
>> > If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
>> >
>> If he was paid *and he was an employee* the copyright would [normaly] be his
>> / her employer's.
>
>The moral being that if a consultant is commissioned to do the work
>(rather than an employee), then it is in everyone's interest to spell
>out in the contract who is to own the copyright. The default position
>otherwise is that the consultant owns it.
>
And if, as is possible, there was no contract? One possible scenario: a
>> >
>> > "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
>> > news:LYWdnW9_mIpDLFzM...@bt.com...
>> >
>> > If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
>> >
>> If he was paid *and he was an employee* the copyright would [normaly] be his
>> / her employer's.
>
>The moral being that if a consultant is commissioned to do the work
>(rather than an employee), then it is in everyone's interest to spell
>out in the contract who is to own the copyright. The default position
>otherwise is that the consultant owns it.
>
member generously contributes expertise freely for the benefit of the
charity, then relationships sour. Could such a provison of software
then be deemed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be
anything other than the assignation of at least a permanent licence?
--
Iain Archer
Tim Jackson
Jun 19, 2013, 7:55:02 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:00:06 +0100, Iain Archer wrote...
is no contract.
However, I think a court could still say that the charity had an implied
licence to continue to use the software free of charge, because of the
member's conduct when he gave it to them. And/or that the member has
acquiesced in their use of it, so can't now sue them for infringement.
Similarly, if I write an article or take a photo in which I own the
copyright, and I publish it with a notice saying "anyone may copy this
free of charge", then I don't think a court would subsequently let me
sue someone for copying it.
Or when I post this message, I obviously intend that news servers around
the world will make their own copies and pass them on to their peers.
So a court wouldn't let me sue them for doing that.
>
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 at
> 22:25:02:
> >
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 at
> 22:25:02:
> >
> >The moral being that if a consultant is commissioned to do the work
> >(rather than an employee), then it is in everyone's interest to spell
> >out in the contract who is to own the copyright. The default position
> >otherwise is that the consultant owns it.
> >
> And if, as is possible, there was no contract? One possible scenario: a
> member generously contributes expertise freely for the benefit of the
> charity, then relationships sour. Could such a provison of software
> then be deemed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be
> anything other than the assignation of at least a permanent licence?
It's difficult for a court to imply terms into the contract when there
> >(rather than an employee), then it is in everyone's interest to spell
> >out in the contract who is to own the copyright. The default position
> >otherwise is that the consultant owns it.
> >
> And if, as is possible, there was no contract? One possible scenario: a
> member generously contributes expertise freely for the benefit of the
> charity, then relationships sour. Could such a provison of software
> then be deemed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be
> anything other than the assignation of at least a permanent licence?
is no contract.
However, I think a court could still say that the charity had an implied
licence to continue to use the software free of charge, because of the
member's conduct when he gave it to them. And/or that the member has
acquiesced in their use of it, so can't now sue them for infringement.
Similarly, if I write an article or take a photo in which I own the
copyright, and I publish it with a notice saying "anyone may copy this
free of charge", then I don't think a court would subsequently let me
sue someone for copying it.
Or when I post this message, I obviously intend that news servers around
the world will make their own copies and pass them on to their peers.
So a court wouldn't let me sue them for doing that.
Mark Goodge
Jun 20, 2013, 2:55:02 AM6/20/13
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:55:02 +0100, Tim Jackson put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:00:06 +0100, Iain Archer wrote...
>>
>> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 at
>> 22:25:02:
>> >
>> >The moral being that if a consultant is commissioned to do the work
>> >(rather than an employee), then it is in everyone's interest to spell
>> >out in the contract who is to own the copyright. The default position
>> >otherwise is that the consultant owns it.
>> >
>> And if, as is possible, there was no contract? One possible scenario: a
>> member generously contributes expertise freely for the benefit of the
>> charity, then relationships sour. Could such a provison of software
>> then be deemed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be
>> anything other than the assignation of at least a permanent licence?
>
>It's difficult for a court to imply terms into the contract when there
>is no contract.
>
>However, I think a court could still say that the charity had an implied
>licence to continue to use the software free of charge, because of the
>member's conduct when he gave it to them. And/or that the member has
>acquiesced in their use of it, so can't now sue them for infringement.
That's what I would expect, too. But do you happen to know if there's any
case law on it?
It is, after all, an extremely common situation for a volunteer, with no
contract, to create copyright works for the use of a charity or other
voluntrary group. For example, a member of a youth club, who happens to be
into photography, takes a load of photos of the club and the club then uses
them on its website and in printed publicity. Or a member of a fishing club
designs a website for the club. And, given that charities and voluntary
groups are notoriously likely to have fallings-out with ex-members, cases
where an ex-member starts asserting their intellectual property rights over
material they have previously allowed the organisation to use can hardly be
uncommon either. So I'd have thought that at least one of them, somewhere,
would have actually gone to court and resulted in a reported decision, even
if not a precedent-setting one.
>Similarly, if I write an article or take a photo in which I own the
>copyright, and I publish it with a notice saying "anyone may copy this
>free of charge", then I don't think a court would subsequently let me
>sue someone for copying it.
>
>Or when I post this message, I obviously intend that news servers around
>the world will make their own copies and pass them on to their peers.
>So a court wouldn't let me sue them for doing that.
I'd have thought so, too. But, again, is there any case law?
typed:
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:00:06 +0100, Iain Archer wrote...
>>
>> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 at
>> 22:25:02:
>> >
>> >The moral being that if a consultant is commissioned to do the work
>> >(rather than an employee), then it is in everyone's interest to spell
>> >out in the contract who is to own the copyright. The default position
>> >otherwise is that the consultant owns it.
>> >
>> And if, as is possible, there was no contract? One possible scenario: a
>> member generously contributes expertise freely for the benefit of the
>> charity, then relationships sour. Could such a provison of software
>> then be deemed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be
>> anything other than the assignation of at least a permanent licence?
>
>It's difficult for a court to imply terms into the contract when there
>is no contract.
>
>However, I think a court could still say that the charity had an implied
>licence to continue to use the software free of charge, because of the
>member's conduct when he gave it to them. And/or that the member has
>acquiesced in their use of it, so can't now sue them for infringement.
case law on it?
It is, after all, an extremely common situation for a volunteer, with no
contract, to create copyright works for the use of a charity or other
voluntrary group. For example, a member of a youth club, who happens to be
into photography, takes a load of photos of the club and the club then uses
them on its website and in printed publicity. Or a member of a fishing club
designs a website for the club. And, given that charities and voluntary
groups are notoriously likely to have fallings-out with ex-members, cases
where an ex-member starts asserting their intellectual property rights over
material they have previously allowed the organisation to use can hardly be
uncommon either. So I'd have thought that at least one of them, somewhere,
would have actually gone to court and resulted in a reported decision, even
if not a precedent-setting one.
>Similarly, if I write an article or take a photo in which I own the
>copyright, and I publish it with a notice saying "anyone may copy this
>free of charge", then I don't think a court would subsequently let me
>sue someone for copying it.
>
>Or when I post this message, I obviously intend that news servers around
>the world will make their own copies and pass them on to their peers.
>So a court wouldn't let me sue them for doing that.
Roland Perry
Jun 20, 2013, 3:10:02 AM6/20/13
to
In message <6lpuon....@news.alt.net>, at 22:55:02 on Wed, 19 Jun
2013, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
certain degree of merit? Or is any old rubbish copyright. (I suspect the
latter).
--
Roland Perry
2013, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>A relevant alternative might be a work so simple and obvious (such as a
>spreadsheet with the obvious columns, and the obvious arithmetic
>applied) as to lead the defendant not to suspect that a copyright could
>subsist in it.
Is the UK a country where copyright can only exist in works with a
>spreadsheet with the obvious columns, and the obvious arithmetic
>applied) as to lead the defendant not to suspect that a copyright could
>subsist in it.
certain degree of merit? Or is any old rubbish copyright. (I suspect the
latter).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jun 20, 2013, 3:10:09 AM6/20/13
to
In message <6o44s814lv1bsgtvd...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:35:01 on Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
unique (because it's accidentally recreating an earlier work).
But an Excel spreadsheet would have to be extremely simple to qualify
for that. Remember that the column titles and any comments are just as
much copyright as the formulae.
And of course, as soon as it has any data in it, it's a derivative work
with its own copyright status.
--
Roland Perry
21:35:01 on Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>However, the work would need to be of sufficient complexity to be original;
>if someone else with the same skills, given the same task with the same
>data, would be likely to come up with the same solution then it's unlikely
>to pass that particular test.
I don't follow that. If a work is sufficiently simple it might not be
>if someone else with the same skills, given the same task with the same
>data, would be likely to come up with the same solution then it's unlikely
>to pass that particular test.
unique (because it's accidentally recreating an earlier work).
But an Excel spreadsheet would have to be extremely simple to qualify
for that. Remember that the column titles and any comments are just as
much copyright as the formulae.
And of course, as soon as it has any data in it, it's a derivative work
with its own copyright status.
--
Roland Perry
polygonum
Jun 20, 2013, 3:10:02 AM6/20/13
to
On 20/06/2013 00:55, Tim Jackson wrote:
> Or when I post this message, I obviously intend that news servers around
> the world will make their own copies and pass them on to their peers.
> So a court wouldn't let me sue them for doing that.
The subject of leeching web-sites such as diy-banter has cropped up
> Or when I post this message, I obviously intend that news servers around
> the world will make their own copies and pass them on to their peers.
> So a court wouldn't let me sue them for doing that.
regularly in other places.
We may be content to allow news servers to propagate our messages. But
can our implied permission be restricted to them so that leech sites, or
other use is still protected by our copyrights? For example, if I were
to scrape some of the more interesting threads/messages from here and
publish a real book?
--
Rod
Roland Perry
Jun 20, 2013, 4:30:02 AM6/20/13
to
In message <b2fo3p...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:10:02 on Thu, 20
Jun 2013, polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> remarked:
What might and might not be allowed could depend on issues like "format
shifting" (more often discussed in the context of loading a CD onto an
iPod). But I think it's legal now (or in the process of being made
legal), so we could have a hard time preventing electronic postings
which are clearly intended for mass circulation from appearing in print.
--
Roland Perry
Jun 2013, polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> remarked:
>> Or when I post this message, I obviously intend that news servers around
>> the world will make their own copies and pass them on to their peers.
>> So a court wouldn't let me sue them for doing that.
>
>The subject of leeching web-sites such as diy-banter has cropped up
>regularly in other places.
>
>We may be content to allow news servers to propagate our messages. But
>can our implied permission be restricted to them so that leech sites,
>or other use is still protected by our copyrights?
The biggest leech site is of course Google Groups.
>> the world will make their own copies and pass them on to their peers.
>> So a court wouldn't let me sue them for doing that.
>
>The subject of leeching web-sites such as diy-banter has cropped up
>regularly in other places.
>
>We may be content to allow news servers to propagate our messages. But
>can our implied permission be restricted to them so that leech sites,
>or other use is still protected by our copyrights?
What might and might not be allowed could depend on issues like "format
shifting" (more often discussed in the context of loading a CD onto an
iPod). But I think it's legal now (or in the process of being made
legal), so we could have a hard time preventing electronic postings
which are clearly intended for mass circulation from appearing in print.
--
Roland Perry
Mark
Jun 20, 2013, 4:35:02 AM6/20/13
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:10:09 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <6o44s814lv1bsgtvd...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>21:35:01 on Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>However, the work would need to be of sufficient complexity to be original;
>>if someone else with the same skills, given the same task with the same
>>data, would be likely to come up with the same solution then it's unlikely
>>to pass that particular test.
>
>I don't follow that. If a work is sufficiently simple it might not be
>unique (because it's accidentally recreating an earlier work).
>
>But an Excel spreadsheet would have to be extremely simple to qualify
>for that. Remember that the column titles and any comments are just as
>much copyright as the formulae.
Since the spreadsheet here is a membership list then I would think
it's highly likely that someone else could come up with an exact
duplicate of the column titles too: Name, Address, Phone, etc....
>And of course, as soon as it has any data in it, it's a derivative work
>with its own copyright status.
And as Mark G said, they'd probably be better with a database to store
membership information.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
wrote:
>In message <6o44s814lv1bsgtvd...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>21:35:01 on Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>However, the work would need to be of sufficient complexity to be original;
>>if someone else with the same skills, given the same task with the same
>>data, would be likely to come up with the same solution then it's unlikely
>>to pass that particular test.
>
>I don't follow that. If a work is sufficiently simple it might not be
>unique (because it's accidentally recreating an earlier work).
>
>But an Excel spreadsheet would have to be extremely simple to qualify
>for that. Remember that the column titles and any comments are just as
>much copyright as the formulae.
it's highly likely that someone else could come up with an exact
duplicate of the column titles too: Name, Address, Phone, etc....
>And of course, as soon as it has any data in it, it's a derivative work
>with its own copyright status.
membership information.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
Nick Odell
Jun 20, 2013, 5:00:13 AM6/20/13
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:10:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
I take the implication behind "works" to be something intended for
publication but surely UK copyright law means that a letter or a
shopping list that I might write has just as much protection, should I
choose to enforce it, as a manuscript of a novel or a music score?
Nick
wrote:
publication but surely UK copyright law means that a letter or a
shopping list that I might write has just as much protection, should I
choose to enforce it, as a manuscript of a novel or a music score?
Nick
Message has been deleted
Davidm
Jun 20, 2013, 6:40:02 AM6/20/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:40:01 +0100, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 19/06/2013 11:50, Davidm wrote:
>> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>>
>was the design done?
Yes the charity does own a legal copy of Excel, as do I (I'm now
responsible for support of this spreadsheet). The design was done by a
member, who also had a legal copy of Excel, and the design was done
specifically for our charity, but at the members iniative and unpaid
and with no contract (i.e. they were not employed to do it).
David
wrote:
>On 19/06/2013 11:50, Davidm wrote:
>> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>>
>> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>> recording membership information.
>>
>> At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
>> come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
>> the spreadsheet.
>
>Does the Charity own a legal copy of Excel and under what circumstances
>> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>> recording membership information.
>>
>> At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
>> come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
>> the spreadsheet.
>
>was the design done?
Yes the charity does own a legal copy of Excel, as do I (I'm now
responsible for support of this spreadsheet). The design was done by a
member, who also had a legal copy of Excel, and the design was done
specifically for our charity, but at the members iniative and unpaid
and with no contract (i.e. they were not employed to do it).
David
Davidm
Jun 20, 2013, 7:00:05 AM6/20/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:50:02 +0100, Davidm
<davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
>The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>recording membership information.
>
>At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
>come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
>the spreadsheet.
>
>(this is in the UK, England)
>Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
>The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>recording membership information.
>
>At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
>come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
>the spreadsheet.
>
>
>Thanks for any advice,
>David
In reply to a number of questions raised above:
The design was done by a member of the charity organisation and it was
done specifically for our charity, but at that members iniative,
unpaid and with no contract (i.e. they were not employed to do it).
There are (and never were) any copyright indications built into the
spreadsheet, or any formal notification that the designer expected
copyright ownership, or was granted it.
They have subsequently left the charity following a soured
relationship, joined a similar new one, and that person is disputing
our right to continue using the spreadsheet.
In the meantime I have taken over support for the spreadsheet and have
made a few enhancements and changes to it, though not substantial
changes to the design.
In my view the spreadsheet is not complex, but that's subjective of
course. Aside from simple arithmetic functions and conditional
formating it's only using some straightforward VLOOKUP functions to
display members names etc. when their membership number is entered
(it's just a registration system for recording attendance at
meetings).
We've avoided using a database because of the ongoing support
implications (many more members are familiar with spreadsheets than
databases).
David
Martin Bonner
Jun 20, 2013, 8:25:01 AM6/20/13
to
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:25:02 PM UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
> On 19/06/2013 17:10, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>
> > What bit of protection does your notice add that would be absent without it?
>
> Protection against it being ripped off in the USA!
The US Copyright office says (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf)
> On 19/06/2013 17:10, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>
> > What bit of protection does your notice add that would be absent without it?
>
> Protection against it being ripped off in the USA!
that hasn't been true for over two decades (since March 1, 1989).
Furthermore, there are certain foreign (not US) works that get their
copyright back even if they didn't have the requisite notice prior to
that date.
You really don't need it!
> Am I right that this requires use of the © symbol and not (c)?
be ©, the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr."
John Briggs
Jun 20, 2013, 8:30:02 AM6/20/13
to
the item has an economic value (either positive or negative) - whether
to you or the person seeking to publish it. (Of course, a newspaper
editor would be hard pressed to justify claiming that something has no
value if they are publishing it in order to sell their newspaper.)
--
John Briggs
Message has been deleted
John Briggs
Jun 20, 2013, 9:05:09 AM6/20/13
to
On 20/06/2013 13:45, August West wrote:
> moral rights (Bere Convention A6bis, and CDPA 1988 ss 77 & 80), but they
> have no great relevance to the instant case.
Courts (and judges in particular) get quite annoyed by cases where no
economic value (to anyone) is involved.
--
John Briggs
> The entity calling itself John Briggs wrote:
>>
>> No - copyright is an *economic* right.
>
> Practically true, legally false. There's also the related, inalenable,
>>
>> No - copyright is an *economic* right.
>
> moral rights (Bere Convention A6bis, and CDPA 1988 ss 77 & 80), but they
> have no great relevance to the instant case.
>
>> It is only worth enforcing when the item has an economic value
>
> Being worth enforcing is quite disticnt form existing.
>> It is only worth enforcing when the item has an economic value
>
Courts (and judges in particular) get quite annoyed by cases where no
economic value (to anyone) is involved.
--
John Briggs
polygonum
Jun 20, 2013, 8:35:02 AM6/20/13
to
full, and never knew about "Copr.".
--
Rod
Message has been deleted
Norman Wells
Jun 20, 2013, 9:25:05 AM6/20/13
to
Davidm wrote:
> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
Almost certainly not. To attract copyright protection it would have to
> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
qualify as a literary work which, according to Secftion 3(1) of the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 includes 'a computer program'.
It depends, I would have thought, on how much computing is actually done
on the data in the spreadsheet as to whether it is substantial enough
for what he has done to be called 'a computer program'.
> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> recording membership information.
agreement in place, there is an implied licence for the charity to use
it for the purpose it was intended. In the absence of any indication to
the contrary, I would say that such a licence is not time limited in any
way.
Moreover, since the data seems to consist just of membership
information, I cannot see that there is anything substantial to compute
from it, and if that is the case what he has provided does not amount to
a computer program, so there are no copyright issues anyway.
Frank Erskine
Jun 20, 2013, 9:50:02 AM6/20/13
to
(ex)-member presumably created it without thought of recompense, so
effectively "donated" it to the Charity. Unless he/she specifically
indicated at the time that his/her work was personal copyright, the
fact that he/she brought it into use implies that its use belongs to
the Charity.
--
Frank Erskine
polygonum
Jun 20, 2013, 10:40:02 AM6/20/13
to
On 20/06/2013 14:50, Frank Erskine wrote:
> If the spreadsheet was done voluntarily for "your" Charity the
> (ex)-member presumably created it without thought of recompense, so
> effectively "donated" it to the Charity. Unless he/she specifically
> indicated at the time that his/her work was personal copyright, the
> fact that he/she brought it into use implies that its use belongs to
> the Charity.
In a broadly similar situation, I have expressly put my own copyright on
> If the spreadsheet was done voluntarily for "your" Charity the
> (ex)-member presumably created it without thought of recompense, so
> effectively "donated" it to the Charity. Unless he/she specifically
> indicated at the time that his/her work was personal copyright, the
> fact that he/she brought it into use implies that its use belongs to
> the Charity.
some spreadsheets I have effectively made available to a charity. They
and anyone else are entirely welcome to use them as they are and may do
so forever. Or, indeed, they may use them as a start point towards
something else. However I do not wish others to exploit them for
economic advantage.
I felt clarity was required.
--
Rod
Message has been deleted
Mike Bristow
Jun 20, 2013, 12:20:02 PM6/20/13
to
In article <87ppvg2...@news2.kororaa.com>,
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> To (formally) achieve what you wish you need to
> provide the copyright work under some form of permisive licence, such as
> the well-known FSF "copyleft" licnece, that allow such things. (The BSD
> licnece does sonething similar but allows commercial exploitation).
They both allow commercial exploitation, as it happens.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> To (formally) achieve what you wish you need to
> provide the copyright work under some form of permisive licence, such as
> the well-known FSF "copyleft" licnece, that allow such things. (The BSD
> licnece does sonething similar but allows commercial exploitation).
They both allow commercial exploitation, as it happens.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Message has been deleted
Mark Goodge
Jun 20, 2013, 12:45:05 PM6/20/13
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:10:09 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <6o44s814lv1bsgtvd...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>21:35:01 on Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>However, the work would need to be of sufficient complexity to be original;
>>if someone else with the same skills, given the same task with the same
>>data, would be likely to come up with the same solution then it's unlikely
>>to pass that particular test.
>
>I don't follow that. If a work is sufficiently simple it might not be
>unique (because it's accidentally recreating an earlier work).
>
>But an Excel spreadsheet would have to be extremely simple to qualify
>for that. Remember that the column titles and any comments are just as
>much copyright as the formulae.
It's a question of originality. The author would need to show, if
necessary, that he had created a work which was more than merely the
inevitable (or even probable) outcome of implementing the specification.
>And of course, as soon as it has any data in it, it's a derivative work
>with its own copyright status.
Yes, but a derivative work is an additional work with its own copyright. It
doesn't affect the rights in the original source.
typed:
>In message <6o44s814lv1bsgtvd...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>21:35:01 on Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>However, the work would need to be of sufficient complexity to be original;
>>if someone else with the same skills, given the same task with the same
>>data, would be likely to come up with the same solution then it's unlikely
>>to pass that particular test.
>
>I don't follow that. If a work is sufficiently simple it might not be
>unique (because it's accidentally recreating an earlier work).
>
>But an Excel spreadsheet would have to be extremely simple to qualify
>for that. Remember that the column titles and any comments are just as
>much copyright as the formulae.
necessary, that he had created a work which was more than merely the
inevitable (or even probable) outcome of implementing the specification.
>And of course, as soon as it has any data in it, it's a derivative work
>with its own copyright status.
doesn't affect the rights in the original source.
polygonum
Jun 20, 2013, 12:20:09 PM6/20/13
to
On 20/06/2013 17:05, August West wrote:
> You hven't achieved clarity, then. The default situation in law is that,
> without your expicit permision, all rights are reserved, and "anyone
> else" cannot exploit or use your copyright works, nor may they make
> derivitive works. To (formally) achieve what you wish you need to
--
Rod
> without your expicit permision, all rights are reserved, and "anyone
> else" cannot exploit or use your copyright works, nor may they make
> derivitive works. To (formally) achieve what you wish you need to
> provide the copyright work under some form of permisive licence, such as
> the well-known FSF "copyleft" licnece, that allow such things. (The BSD
> licnece does sonething similar but allows commercial exploitation).
>
Clarity is provided, I feel, elsewhere than within the document.
> the well-known FSF "copyleft" licnece, that allow such things. (The BSD
> licnece does sonething similar but allows commercial exploitation).
>
--
Rod
Mark Goodge
Jun 20, 2013, 12:50:02 PM6/20/13
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:25:05 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>Davidm wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
>Almost certainly not. To attract copyright protection it would have to
>qualify as a literary work which, according to Secftion 3(1) of the
>Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 includes 'a computer program'.
>It depends, I would have thought, on how much computing is actually done
>on the data in the spreadsheet as to whether it is substantial enough
>for what he has done to be called 'a computer program'.
Excel is far more than a spreadsheet (although manipulating spreadsheets is
what it is most commonly used for). It is certainly a complex enough
programming environment for works created with it to be subject to
copyright in their own right, independently of any data manipulated by
them.
typed:
>Davidm wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
>Almost certainly not. To attract copyright protection it would have to
>qualify as a literary work which, according to Secftion 3(1) of the
>Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 includes 'a computer program'.
>It depends, I would have thought, on how much computing is actually done
>on the data in the spreadsheet as to whether it is substantial enough
>for what he has done to be called 'a computer program'.
what it is most commonly used for). It is certainly a complex enough
programming environment for works created with it to be subject to
copyright in their own right, independently of any data manipulated by
them.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Iain Archer
Jun 20, 2013, 1:50:02 PM6/20/13
to
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 at 18:25:02:
>program itself, rather being created than as a seperate textual
>representation (as a traditional computer program held to be by CDPA
>s.3(1)(b)), can it, as program data, really be said to be analogous to a
>written literary work? I suspect it can, but without supporting
>authority. Perhaps it can be argued to be a database, unser CDPA
>s3(1)(d)?
>
My Excel 97 incorporates a Visual Basic editor and interpreter that
enable the writing and use of modules containing user-defined functions
and procedures; which helps greatly with the fiddly bits.
--
Iain
>
>The entity calling itself Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> Excel is far more than a spreadsheet (although manipulating spreadsheets is
>> what it is most commonly used for). It is certainly a complex enough
>> programming environment for works created with it to be subject to
>> copyright in their own right, independently of any data manipulated by
>> them.
>
>Although, as the "programing" of Excel is achieved by input to the
>The entity calling itself Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> Excel is far more than a spreadsheet (although manipulating spreadsheets is
>> what it is most commonly used for). It is certainly a complex enough
>> programming environment for works created with it to be subject to
>> copyright in their own right, independently of any data manipulated by
>> them.
>
>program itself, rather being created than as a seperate textual
>representation (as a traditional computer program held to be by CDPA
>s.3(1)(b)), can it, as program data, really be said to be analogous to a
>written literary work? I suspect it can, but without supporting
>authority. Perhaps it can be argued to be a database, unser CDPA
>s3(1)(d)?
>
My Excel 97 incorporates a Visual Basic editor and interpreter that
enable the writing and use of modules containing user-defined functions
and procedures; which helps greatly with the fiddly bits.
--
Iain
Francis Davey
Jun 20, 2013, 4:55:02 PM6/20/13
to
Le jeudi 20 juin 2013 10:20:05 UTC+1, August West a écrit :
>
> A shopping list might not attract copyright, as a mere assemblege of
>
> data (CDPA 1988 s.3(A)), where the phrase "one intelectual creation" is
>
> used. However, a letter would, as "oroginal" (CDPA 1988 ss 5A(2) 5B(5)
>
> 8(2)).
>
Just a random remark - since I hold myself out as a copyright expert I guess I ought to try to say something, but I'm also not too well.
There's an as yet not properly addressed question about the extent to which "originality" in so far as it is different from the test of "own intellectual creation" remains the correct threshold in UK law, particularly for anything other than a photograph (for which see the odd exclusion in the Term Directive - but that isn't important right now).
The CJEU in Infopaq and what follows seem to be adopting an approach that assumes the subsistence of copyright has a uniform interpretation across the EU. Therefore, from an EU perspective, "own intellectual creation" is the threshold for all forms of copyright covered by Infosoc, the database directive or the software directive. Indeed in Softwara they seem to be treating that as a sufficient rather than simply a necessary condition.
Anyway, UK courts seem to be approaching the "substantial part" test for infringement by looking at whether the "own intellectual creation" of the author is taken (eg by following the CJEU's approach in Panier). Since infringement is the mirror of subsistence, what appears to be happening is that, in practice, the courts are treating "own intellectual creation" as the true test and leaving behind the originality test of the statute.
Some judges have tried to say that originality was own intellectual creation all along. I am fairly sure they are wrong about that.
Now you might say, well the 1988 Act is a statute. A mere directive that does not expressly overrule it can't change its meaning. What that would mean is that law imported via the European Communities Act would follow the directive, but there'd still be a "UK" version of copyright unaltered by EU law (and not recognised by it) so that a work might qualify for this old-style status but not be subject to EU copyright.
That's more complex than it looks. Eg it would mean that the communication to the public right would not apply to it. That right arises out of Infosoc via the CRR Regulations which must import the definitions in the Infosoc Directive regardless of the fact that the UK government failed to change the wording of the 1988 Act.
In the case of a spreadsheet there are, as always, many possible copyrights that might exist there. If all that is on the spreadsheet is a table of information then it might be a literary work (as a table), a database (if it meets the statutory definition of one) or not. The "computer program" question is unlikely to be relevant unless the spreadsheet has formulae embedded in it, in which case it would qualify as a computer program (and therefore a literary work).
In my view, the threshold test of *all* of these (for copyright) is "own intellectual creation" at least since Infosoc, but it is not 100% clear.
Francis
>
> A shopping list might not attract copyright, as a mere assemblege of
>
> data (CDPA 1988 s.3(A)), where the phrase "one intelectual creation" is
>
> used. However, a letter would, as "oroginal" (CDPA 1988 ss 5A(2) 5B(5)
>
> 8(2)).
>
Just a random remark - since I hold myself out as a copyright expert I guess I ought to try to say something, but I'm also not too well.
There's an as yet not properly addressed question about the extent to which "originality" in so far as it is different from the test of "own intellectual creation" remains the correct threshold in UK law, particularly for anything other than a photograph (for which see the odd exclusion in the Term Directive - but that isn't important right now).
The CJEU in Infopaq and what follows seem to be adopting an approach that assumes the subsistence of copyright has a uniform interpretation across the EU. Therefore, from an EU perspective, "own intellectual creation" is the threshold for all forms of copyright covered by Infosoc, the database directive or the software directive. Indeed in Softwara they seem to be treating that as a sufficient rather than simply a necessary condition.
Anyway, UK courts seem to be approaching the "substantial part" test for infringement by looking at whether the "own intellectual creation" of the author is taken (eg by following the CJEU's approach in Panier). Since infringement is the mirror of subsistence, what appears to be happening is that, in practice, the courts are treating "own intellectual creation" as the true test and leaving behind the originality test of the statute.
Some judges have tried to say that originality was own intellectual creation all along. I am fairly sure they are wrong about that.
Now you might say, well the 1988 Act is a statute. A mere directive that does not expressly overrule it can't change its meaning. What that would mean is that law imported via the European Communities Act would follow the directive, but there'd still be a "UK" version of copyright unaltered by EU law (and not recognised by it) so that a work might qualify for this old-style status but not be subject to EU copyright.
That's more complex than it looks. Eg it would mean that the communication to the public right would not apply to it. That right arises out of Infosoc via the CRR Regulations which must import the definitions in the Infosoc Directive regardless of the fact that the UK government failed to change the wording of the 1988 Act.
In the case of a spreadsheet there are, as always, many possible copyrights that might exist there. If all that is on the spreadsheet is a table of information then it might be a literary work (as a table), a database (if it meets the statutory definition of one) or not. The "computer program" question is unlikely to be relevant unless the spreadsheet has formulae embedded in it, in which case it would qualify as a computer program (and therefore a literary work).
In my view, the threshold test of *all* of these (for copyright) is "own intellectual creation" at least since Infosoc, but it is not 100% clear.
Francis
Message has been deleted
D.M. Procida
Jun 20, 2013, 7:35:02 PM6/20/13
to
Davidm <davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> recording membership information.
>
> At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
> come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
> the spreadsheet.
I don't see why copyright would not inhere in a spreadsheet the way it
> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> recording membership information.
>
> At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
> come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
> the spreadsheet.
does in any other work.
Whether that would prevent its continued use, I am not sure.
Daniele
Tim Jackson
Jun 20, 2013, 8:00:05 PM6/20/13
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:25:02 +0100, August West wrote...
> It also raise the question of the copyright status of the generated
> ouput of a copyright program... Wolfram Research caused a furore a few
> year ago by making such a claim! I'm pretty sure the claim doesn't stand
> up, but, again, I know of no authority to support that belief
The Copyright etc Act clearly allows for the possibility that the
generated output of a computer program could be a work that has
copyright. Section 9(3) says that the author of a computer-generated
work shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary
for its creation were undertaken.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> It also raise the question of the copyright status of the generated
> ouput of a copyright program... Wolfram Research caused a furore a few
> year ago by making such a claim! I'm pretty sure the claim doesn't stand
> up, but, again, I know of no authority to support that belief
The Copyright etc Act clearly allows for the possibility that the
generated output of a computer program could be a work that has
copyright. Section 9(3) says that the author of a computer-generated
work shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary
for its creation were undertaken.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
Jun 21, 2013, 3:45:01 AM6/21/13
to
In message <3ff6aac2-d2ce-471b...@googlegroups.com>, at
21:55:02 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> remarked:
And the OP mentioned that this one had "simple arithmetic functions" in
it.
--
Roland Perry
21:55:02 on Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> remarked:
>The "computer program" question is unlikely to be relevant unless the
>spreadsheet has formulae embedded in it
Almost all do, however.
>spreadsheet has formulae embedded in it
And the OP mentioned that this one had "simple arithmetic functions" in
it.
--
Roland Perry
polygonum
Jun 21, 2013, 4:05:02 AM6/21/13
to
care about. The formulas I use are trivial and, given the other
information, could easily be implemented by anyone with half a clue.
Indeed, the text expressly identifies the mathematical operations performed.
--
Rod
Norman Wells
Jun 21, 2013, 4:20:04 AM6/21/13
to
polygonum wrote:
> On 20/06/2013 00:55, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> Or when I post this message, I obviously intend that news servers
>> around the world will make their own copies and pass them on to
>> their peers. So a court wouldn't let me sue them for doing that.
>
> The subject of leeching web-sites such as diy-banter has cropped up
> regularly in other places.
>
> We may be content to allow news servers to propagate our messages. But
> can our implied permission be restricted to them so that leech sites,
> or other use is still protected by our copyrights? For example, if I
> were to scrape some of the more interesting threads/messages from
> here and publish a real book?
Whenever we post to a newsgroup, we give an implied licence for our
messages to be reproduced for the purposes of continuing discussion
within the newsgroup, which could not function as such unless we did.
There is no such implied licence given for any other purpose.
Publication of a book would therefore be copyright infringement.
> On 20/06/2013 00:55, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> Or when I post this message, I obviously intend that news servers
>> around the world will make their own copies and pass them on to
>> their peers. So a court wouldn't let me sue them for doing that.
>
> The subject of leeching web-sites such as diy-banter has cropped up
> regularly in other places.
>
> We may be content to allow news servers to propagate our messages. But
> can our implied permission be restricted to them so that leech sites,
> or other use is still protected by our copyrights? For example, if I
> were to scrape some of the more interesting threads/messages from
> here and publish a real book?
Whenever we post to a newsgroup, we give an implied licence for our
messages to be reproduced for the purposes of continuing discussion
within the newsgroup, which could not function as such unless we did.
There is no such implied licence given for any other purpose.
Publication of a book would therefore be copyright infringement.
Chris R
Jun 21, 2013, 4:25:02 AM6/21/13
to
>
>
> "Francis Davey" wrote in message
> news:3ff6aac2-d2ce-471b...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Le jeudi 20 juin 2013 10:20:05 UTC+1, August West a �crit :
>
> Just a random remark - since I hold myself out as a copyright expert I
> guess I ought to try to say something, but I'm also not too well.
>
Sorry to hear that Francis, get well soon.
> Just a random remark - since I hold myself out as a copyright expert I
> guess I ought to try to say something, but I'm also not too well.
>
(c) 2013 Chris R
Norman Wells
Jun 21, 2013, 4:30:02 AM6/21/13
to
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> agreement to the contrary, be terminable by the granter at his will.
I doubt if any court would uphold that. It would mean that the charity
could be held to ransom on a whim at any time, which would be
inequitable.
>> Moreover, since the data seems to consist just of membership
>> information, I cannot see that there is anything substantial to
>> compute from it, and if that is the case what he has provided does
>> not amount to a computer program, so there are no copyright issues
>> anyway.
>
> A computer program need not obviously perform calculations. A program
> might only perform the formatting of screen displays and printed
> reports and still qualify as being a computer program.
To qualify for copyright protection it still has to be 'original' and
not de minimis. If it's all trite and commonplace stuff, I doubt if it
qualifies. But it depends on what it actually does of course, as I
said.
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:25:05 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Since he constructed it for that use, then, even if there is no
>> written agreement in place, there is an implied licence for the
>> charity to use it for the purpose it was intended. In the absence
>> of any indication to the contrary, I would say that such a licence
>> is not time limited in any way.
>
> That sounds backwards. Any permission or licence would, absent some
> wrote:
>
>> Since he constructed it for that use, then, even if there is no
>> written agreement in place, there is an implied licence for the
>> charity to use it for the purpose it was intended. In the absence
>> of any indication to the contrary, I would say that such a licence
>> is not time limited in any way.
>
> agreement to the contrary, be terminable by the granter at his will.
I doubt if any court would uphold that. It would mean that the charity
could be held to ransom on a whim at any time, which would be
inequitable.
>> Moreover, since the data seems to consist just of membership
>> information, I cannot see that there is anything substantial to
>> compute from it, and if that is the case what he has provided does
>> not amount to a computer program, so there are no copyright issues
>> anyway.
>
> might only perform the formatting of screen displays and printed
> reports and still qualify as being a computer program.
To qualify for copyright protection it still has to be 'original' and
not de minimis. If it's all trite and commonplace stuff, I doubt if it
qualifies. But it depends on what it actually does of course, as I
said.
Francis Davey
Jun 21, 2013, 4:40:03 AM6/21/13
to
Le vendredi 21 juin 2013 08:45:01 UTC+1, Roland Perry a écrit :
>
>
> And the OP mentioned that this one had "simple arithmetic functions" in
>
> it.
>
OK. I missed that. Someone mentioned address lists and that is what I was responding to.
>
>
> And the OP mentioned that this one had "simple arithmetic functions" in
>
> it.
>
There's nothing to stop a work being simultaneously in several categories. Eg (on authority) a circuit diagram is both an artistic and a literary work (artistic: because it is a picture, literary: because it is written in the language of electronics). Obviously such a hybrid work might be infringed differently as a literary and as an artistic work.
So a spreadsheet-with-formula sufficient to make it a computer program would probably be a table (or database) *and* a computer program and so potentially qualify for copyright protection under all three different categories (covered by three different EU directives: Infosoc, database directive and software directive respectively).
Here I am talking about the .xls file. When run using excel it produces a computer generated image on the screen - whether that is a work is a tricky question. It lacks the fixation you would normally require of a work in English law but then softwara accepted that there could be copyright in the user interface of a computer program. Printed out would fix that of course.
Copyright in the .xls file will belong to its author unless the author created the work in the course of employment, when the first owner will be the employer. Works produced under contract (or by volunteers) won't transfer copyright.
There might be an implied agreement to convey the copyright in certain circumstances, but that might only create an equitable right in the intended transferee. You can't transfer copyright without a contract in writing signed by the transferor. So whether an implied term argument works depends crucially on the circumstances.
There's no problem with compilation for computer generated works. Sure, the object code compiled from source is a computer generated work and the author of the work will be the person who ran the compiler but, in general, they won't have any copyright in the object code because their won't be any of their "own intellectual creation" in the work. To obtain copyright in the object code they would have had to use the formative freedom available to them.
So (for example) there *might* be circumstances where really creative use of makefiles and GNU configure might be sufficient for there to be compiler's copyright in the object code.
But this is hardly surprising. The copyright owners in the source will also have a copyright in the object code so they can effectively control what is done with it. The person running the compiler will have needed the owner of the copyright in the source's permission to do what they did.
Francis
Francis Davey
Jun 21, 2013, 4:45:02 AM6/21/13
to
Le vendredi 21 juin 2013 09:25:02 UTC+1, Chris R a écrit :
>
> Sorry to hear that Francis, get well soon.
>
>
Thanks. Explains I hope the rather garbled posts I have been making.
>
> Sorry to hear that Francis, get well soon.
>
>
Francis
GB
Jun 21, 2013, 6:55:02 AM6/21/13
to
On 19/06/2013 16:40, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:51c1c69d$0$1098$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> On 19/06/2013 14:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> "Davidm" <davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3f23s85jqaq47inmk...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Does it make any difference if he was employed on a voluntary basis?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes if their is no consideration then he could have developed it himself and
> grated you a license to use it. Without consideration there is no contact.
Hmm, there are loads of people working for charities FOC. Are they
really not employees of some sort? There must be some consideration for
the work, such as managerial support? n
> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:51c1c69d$0$1098$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> On 19/06/2013 14:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> "Davidm" <davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3f23s85jqaq47inmk...@4ax.com...
>>>> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>>>> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>>>> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>>>>
>>>> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>>>> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>>>> recording membership information.
>>>
>>> If he was paid then the copyright would [normaly] be his / her employer's
>>>> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>>>> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>>>>
>>>> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>>>> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>>>> recording membership information.
>>>
>>
>> Does it make any difference if he was employed on a voluntary basis?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes if their is no consideration then he could have developed it himself and
> grated you a license to use it. Without consideration there is no contact.
Hmm, there are loads of people working for charities FOC. Are they
really not employees of some sort? There must be some consideration for
the work, such as managerial support? n
GB
Jun 21, 2013, 7:00:02 AM6/21/13
to
On 20/06/2013 07:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> However, I think a court could still say that the charity had an implied
>> licence to continue to use the software free of charge, because of the
>> member's conduct when he gave it to them. And/or that the member has
>> acquiesced in their use of it, so can't now sue them for infringement.
>
> That's what I would expect, too. But do you happen to know if there's any
> case law on it?
Surely, this is covered by Estoppel by Convention? Loads of case law on
that!
>> However, I think a court could still say that the charity had an implied
>> licence to continue to use the software free of charge, because of the
>> member's conduct when he gave it to them. And/or that the member has
>> acquiesced in their use of it, so can't now sue them for infringement.
>
> That's what I would expect, too. But do you happen to know if there's any
> case law on it?
Surely, this is covered by Estoppel by Convention? Loads of case law on
that!
Roland Perry
Jun 21, 2013, 7:10:01 AM6/21/13
to
In message <b2iffq...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:05:02 on Fri, 21
Jun 2013, polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> remarked:
>Indeed, the text expressly identifies the mathematical operations
>performed.
Mine rarely do - they are usually things like expenses/accounts where I
wouldn't normally use text to describe an entry with a formula.
eg: Mileage to airport - as the description
0.4 x 38 - as the formula (where I know without explicit text that
this means 38 miles at 40p)
Column totals I usually embolden, but don't put the word "Total" on the
spreadsheet.
--
Roland Perry
Jun 2013, polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> remarked:
>>> The "computer program" question is unlikely to be relevant unless the
>>> spreadsheet has formulae embedded in it
>>
>> Almost all do, however.
>>
>> And the OP mentioned that this one had "simple arithmetic functions" in it.
>
>In the spreadsheets I have created, it is text, information and layout
>I care about. The formulas I use are trivial and, given the other
>information, could easily be implemented by anyone with half a clue.
That doesn't make them any less of a copyrightable thing.
>>> spreadsheet has formulae embedded in it
>>
>> Almost all do, however.
>>
>> And the OP mentioned that this one had "simple arithmetic functions" in it.
>
>In the spreadsheets I have created, it is text, information and layout
>I care about. The formulas I use are trivial and, given the other
>information, could easily be implemented by anyone with half a clue.
>Indeed, the text expressly identifies the mathematical operations
>performed.
wouldn't normally use text to describe an entry with a formula.
eg: Mileage to airport - as the description
0.4 x 38 - as the formula (where I know without explicit text that
this means 38 miles at 40p)
Column totals I usually embolden, but don't put the word "Total" on the
spreadsheet.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jun 21, 2013, 7:15:04 AM6/21/13
to
In message <51c43050$0$23473$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, at 11:55:02 on
Fri, 21 Jun 2013, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
volunteering while on the dole. (And restricts a person's ability to do
the volunteering).
--
Roland Perry
Fri, 21 Jun 2013, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
>Hmm, there are loads of people working for charities FOC. Are they
>really not employees of some sort?
The Benefits people regard them as "employees", when it comes to
>really not employees of some sort?
volunteering while on the dole. (And restricts a person's ability to do
the volunteering).
--
Roland Perry
polygonum
Jun 21, 2013, 4:40:02 AM6/21/13
to
within NNTP servers. Where is the border now? Isn't putting the
information into web pages accessible to all akin to publishing a book?
--
Rod
Davidm
Jun 21, 2013, 5:10:01 AM6/21/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:50:02 +0100, Davidm
<davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
>The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>recording membership information.
>
<davidm_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
>spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
>uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
>The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
>right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
>recording membership information.
>
>At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
>come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
>the spreadsheet.
>
>(this is in the UK, England)
>come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
>the spreadsheet.
>
>
>Thanks for any advice,
>David
Thanks to all for your responses, it all makes interesting reading.
The ONLY thing that seems to be clear is that getting lawyers involved
will be extremely expensive, as there doesn't appear to be a simple
answer and they will have themselves a field day on it!
David
Norman Wells
Jun 21, 2013, 5:15:03 AM6/21/13
to
Francis Davey wrote:
> Le vendredi 21 juin 2013 08:45:01 UTC+1, Roland Perry a écrit :
> Copyright in the .xls file will belong to its author unless the
> author created the work in the course of employment, when the first
> owner will be the employer. Works produced under contract (or by
> volunteers) won't transfer copyright.
>
> There might be an implied agreement to convey the copyright in
> certain circumstances, but that might only create an equitable right
> in the intended transferee. You can't transfer copyright without a
> contract in writing signed by the transferor. So whether an implied
> term argument works depends crucially on the circumstances.
That is not the point. Ownership of copyright, if there is any, is not
> Le vendredi 21 juin 2013 08:45:01 UTC+1, Roland Perry a écrit :
> Copyright in the .xls file will belong to its author unless the
> author created the work in the course of employment, when the first
> owner will be the employer. Works produced under contract (or by
> volunteers) won't transfer copyright.
>
> There might be an implied agreement to convey the copyright in
> certain circumstances, but that might only create an equitable right
> in the intended transferee. You can't transfer copyright without a
> contract in writing signed by the transferor. So whether an implied
> term argument works depends crucially on the circumstances.
in question, nor is there any question of there being any agreement to
transfer it from the author to anyone else. No transfer of copyright is
necessary.
The important point is whether there is an implied _licence_ for the
charity to use and continue to use anything that might attract copyright
protection that was created for it. If there is, there is no problem.
If there isn't, the charity can be held to ransom at any time on the
whim of the author. The latter, I say, is a conclusion no court would
willingly reach.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
polygonum
Jun 21, 2013, 8:30:02 AM6/21/13
to
ransom might be important should the charity need to change the
spreadsheet in any way. The copyright owner may not grant permission for
his work to be modified or allow a derivative work to be created.
--
Rod
Norman Wells
Jun 21, 2013, 9:20:05 AM6/21/13
to
would be implied. With a web page, the licence would be to view the web
page. With a newsgroup, it would be to facilitate discussion within the
newsgroup. Nothing more in either case.
Norman Wells
Jun 21, 2013, 10:10:01 AM6/21/13
to
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:30:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> volunteering.
I don't see how that follows at all. Can you explain?
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:30:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:25:05 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since he constructed it for that use, then, even if there is no
>>>> written agreement in place, there is an implied licence for the
>>>> charity to use it for the purpose it was intended. In the absence
>>>> of any indication to the contrary, I would say that such a licence
>>>> is not time limited in any way.
>>>
>>> That sounds backwards. Any permission or licence would, absent some
>>> agreement to the contrary, be terminable by the granter at his will.
>>
>> I doubt if any court would uphold that. It would mean that the
>> charity could be held to ransom on a whim at any time, which would be
>> inequitable.
>
> On that theory the author could be forbidden from ending his
>
>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:25:05 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since he constructed it for that use, then, even if there is no
>>>> written agreement in place, there is an implied licence for the
>>>> charity to use it for the purpose it was intended. In the absence
>>>> of any indication to the contrary, I would say that such a licence
>>>> is not time limited in any way.
>>>
>>> That sounds backwards. Any permission or licence would, absent some
>>> agreement to the contrary, be terminable by the granter at his will.
>>
>> I doubt if any court would uphold that. It would mean that the
>> charity could be held to ransom on a whim at any time, which would be
>> inequitable.
>
> volunteering.
I don't see how that follows at all. Can you explain?
GB
Jun 21, 2013, 10:40:02 AM6/21/13
to
charity shop and a volunteer drops a load of boxes on my head. Are the
charity really able to argue "the volunteer was not an employee as there
was no consideration, so we are not liable for the volunteer's acts"?
Neil Williams
Jun 21, 2013, 10:50:03 AM6/21/13
to
GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I was also thinking about third party liability. Suppose I go into a
> charity shop and a volunteer drops a load of boxes on my head. Are the
> charity really able to argue "the volunteer was not an employee as there
> was no consideration, so we are not liable for the volunteer's acts"?
Absolutely not, otherwise Scouting wouldn't need such a comprehensive third
> I was also thinking about third party liability. Suppose I go into a
> charity shop and a volunteer drops a load of boxes on my head. Are the
> charity really able to argue "the volunteer was not an employee as there
> was no consideration, so we are not liable for the volunteer's acts"?
party liability policy, for instance.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
Jon Ribbens
Jun 21, 2013, 10:55:02 AM6/21/13
to
newsgroups these days are probably aware that Google is going to
archive their posts, index them, and make them available on a web
site, so the absence of an X-No-Archive header could well be taken
as an indication that they are also permitting that.
polygonum
Jun 21, 2013, 11:30:02 AM6/21/13
to
On 21/06/2013 15:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> To be fair, that's simply your own theory. Most people using
> newsgroups these days are probably aware that Google is going to
> archive their posts, index them, and make them available on a web
> site, so the absence of an X-No-Archive header could well be taken
> as an indication that they are also permitting that.
In the early days of Google doing that I, and I rather assume many
> To be fair, that's simply your own theory. Most people using
> newsgroups these days are probably aware that Google is going to
> archive their posts, index them, and make them available on a web
> site, so the absence of an X-No-Archive header could well be taken
> as an indication that they are also permitting that.
others, were willing to accept the quid pro quo - they provide a useful
and accessible archive, we provide the material.
The web leeches have not, in my opinion, done anything useful but merely
attempt to flog advertising on the backs of the actual posters.
--
Rod
Message has been deleted
Mark Goodge
Jun 21, 2013, 2:40:01 PM6/21/13
to
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:15:06 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>
>The entity calling itself Davidm wrote:
>>
>> The ONLY thing that seems to be clear is that getting lawyers involved
>> will be extremely expensive, as there doesn't appear to be a simple
>> answer and they will have themselves a field day on it!
>
>I would have though the clear thing is to simply carry on, and leave it
>as is, and let the disgrutled ex-supporter and spreadsheet author take
>action, if he feels he has a case. Leave the expense and lawyers to him
>- he'll soon find out, to his cost, that he really doens't have enything
>to gain, and a large bill to pay, by taking action.
I entirely agree with this. It isn't worth the OP bothering about until
such time as the complainant starts to go down the road of actual legal
action.
>The case is, fankly, so patently trivial that no reputable lawyer should
>allow a client to embark on litigation over it.
Can you patent trivia? :-)
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
typed:
>
>The entity calling itself Davidm wrote:
>>
>> The ONLY thing that seems to be clear is that getting lawyers involved
>> will be extremely expensive, as there doesn't appear to be a simple
>> answer and they will have themselves a field day on it!
>
>as is, and let the disgrutled ex-supporter and spreadsheet author take
>action, if he feels he has a case. Leave the expense and lawyers to him
>- he'll soon find out, to his cost, that he really doens't have enything
>to gain, and a large bill to pay, by taking action.
I entirely agree with this. It isn't worth the OP bothering about until
such time as the complainant starts to go down the road of actual legal
action.
>The case is, fankly, so patently trivial that no reputable lawyer should
>allow a client to embark on litigation over it.
Can you patent trivia? :-)
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 21, 2013, 1:30:05 PM6/21/13
to
Davidm wrote:
> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> recording membership information.
>
> At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
> come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
> the spreadsheet.
>
> (this is in the UK, England)
>
> Thanks for any advice,
> David
I think people may be getting distracted by the fact that this is an
> Is it possible to get copyright on an Excel spreadsheet (the
> spreadsheet design itself, not the data in it), when that spreadsheet
> uses only standard functions, i.e. no macros, no VB code?
>
> The charity I'm involved in has an ex member who is disputing our
> right to continue using a spreadsheet that he constructed for use in
> recording membership information.
>
> At the moment neither party has taken legal advice, hopefully it won't
> come to that, and either he can be proved wrong or we'll just redesign
> the spreadsheet.
>
> (this is in the UK, England)
>
> Thanks for any advice,
> David
electronic system. Let's take it back to a more traditional equivalent.
Suppose I compose a member's Handbook for a charity with which I am
involved, the purpose of this being to produce a printed copy which is given
to each new member. This goes on for a considerable amount of time and I
then fall out with the charity. Could I claim copyright in that case and
force them to stop issuing any further copies of the handbook?
Message has been deleted
Norman Wells
Jun 21, 2013, 3:45:01 PM6/21/13
to
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:10:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> You took the position that a gratuitous supply of the use of IP would
> not be at will but have some nature that would forbid a donor from
> ending the loan. I speculated that this might apply equally to the
> supply of his own time.
But it was never a loan, nor was his time. He gave his time freely and
unconditionally. He produced the spreadsheet and gave its use freely
and unconditionally. He donated both, and cannot claim either back.
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:10:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> not be at will but have some nature that would forbid a donor from
> ending the loan. I speculated that this might apply equally to the
> supply of his own time.
But it was never a loan, nor was his time. He gave his time freely and
unconditionally. He produced the spreadsheet and gave its use freely
and unconditionally. He donated both, and cannot claim either back.
Norman Wells
Jun 21, 2013, 3:50:01 PM6/21/13
to
the charity, and you knew they would use it as a handbook. By doing
that and never charging, you granted the charity an implied free licence
to use your work for that purpose, whether you subsequently fall out
with them or not.
Message has been deleted
Adam Funk
Jun 21, 2013, 4:20:09 PM6/21/13
to
On 2013-06-21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2013-06-21, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> polygonum wrote:
[www sites leaching from USENET]
> On 2013-06-21, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> polygonum wrote:
>>> The original implementation of news would have implied something like,
>>> within NNTP servers. Where is the border now? Isn't putting the
>>> information into web pages accessible to all akin to publishing a
>>> book?
>>
>> No it isn't. It's all to do with implied licence and the terms that
>> would be implied. With a web page, the licence would be to view the web
>> page. With a newsgroup, it would be to facilitate discussion within the
>> newsgroup. Nothing more in either case.
>
> To be fair, that's simply your own theory. Most people using
> newsgroups these days are probably aware that Google is going to
> archive their posts, index them, and make them available on a web
> site, so the absence of an X-No-Archive header could well be taken
> as an indication that they are also permitting that.
belongs to the community that has contributed to it a long period of
time. Google bought Deja& has consistenly run the user interface
downhill.
Also, Google also does not properly respect X-No-Archive; XNA posts
frequently show up in search totals & occasionally burp up in the
details.
Tim Jackson
Jun 21, 2013, 5:20:02 PM6/21/13
to
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 01:40:02 +0100, August West wrote...
>
> The entity calling itself Tim Jackson wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:25:02 +0100, August West wrote...
> >
> >> It also raise the question of the copyright status of the generated
> >> ouput of a copyright program... Wolfram Research caused a furore a few
> >> year ago by making such a claim! I'm pretty sure the claim doesn't stand
> >> up, but, again, I know of no authority to support that belief
> >
> > The Copyright etc Act clearly allows for the possibility that the
> > generated output of a computer program could be a work that has
> > copyright. Section 9(3) says that the author of a computer-generated
> > work shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary
> > for its creation were undertaken.
>
> Yes, but... that clearly depends on the nature of "computer-generated".
> It practically can't cover programming systems (such as Excel, as in the
> instant case) -- that woud render the copyright on compiled programs
> rather murky. Consider: who then owns the copyright - the person who
> prepared (wrote) the input program, or the person who wrote the compiler
> that generated the binary program that was outut.
Yes, some computer-generated works will have a separate copyright and
some won't.
I think Francis has covered complied programs further up the thread.
Message-ID: <9e211dd0-8c4d-4712...@googlegroups.com>
The object code is computer-generated, but the person who loads the
source program and issues the 'compile' command does not get any
copyright in it.
That's because there's none of his/her "own intellectual creation" in
the work (under the latest European view). Or because there is
insufficient originality (in the language of the UK Copyrigh etc Act).
Nevertheless, the object code will be protected by the copyright in the
original source code. That belongs to whoever wrote it (or to his/her
employer, etc).
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
>
> The entity calling itself Tim Jackson wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:25:02 +0100, August West wrote...
> >
> >> It also raise the question of the copyright status of the generated
> >> ouput of a copyright program... Wolfram Research caused a furore a few
> >> year ago by making such a claim! I'm pretty sure the claim doesn't stand
> >> up, but, again, I know of no authority to support that belief
> >
> > The Copyright etc Act clearly allows for the possibility that the
> > generated output of a computer program could be a work that has
> > copyright. Section 9(3) says that the author of a computer-generated
> > work shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary
> > for its creation were undertaken.
>
> Yes, but... that clearly depends on the nature of "computer-generated".
> It practically can't cover programming systems (such as Excel, as in the
> instant case) -- that woud render the copyright on compiled programs
> rather murky. Consider: who then owns the copyright - the person who
> prepared (wrote) the input program, or the person who wrote the compiler
> that generated the binary program that was outut.
Yes, some computer-generated works will have a separate copyright and
some won't.
I think Francis has covered complied programs further up the thread.
Message-ID: <9e211dd0-8c4d-4712...@googlegroups.com>
The object code is computer-generated, but the person who loads the
source program and issues the 'compile' command does not get any
copyright in it.
That's because there's none of his/her "own intellectual creation" in
the work (under the latest European view). Or because there is
insufficient originality (in the language of the UK Copyrigh etc Act).
Nevertheless, the object code will be protected by the copyright in the
original source code. That belongs to whoever wrote it (or to his/her
employer, etc).
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Norman Wells
Jun 21, 2013, 4:30:01 PM6/21/13
to
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:45:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> Yes, changing the stated facts from the author giving the use of the
> IP into his giving the IP itself will yield that result.
Well, it would if he had, but he didn't, so it doesn't. But an implied
licence does.
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:45:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> IP into his giving the IP itself will yield that result.
Well, it would if he had, but he didn't, so it doesn't. But an implied
licence does.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
polygonum
Jun 21, 2013, 5:40:03 PM6/21/13
to
On 21/06/2013 21:40, Phil W Lee wrote:
> polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> considered Fri, 21 Jun 2013
> So is there a need (or desire) for an X-No-HTTP header?
>
Ironically, not quite! On another place there has been discussion over
doing our own web interface! The driver behind that has been the
combination of leeches with the desire to actually have at least a
modest level of new blood. Maybe X-No-HTTP-Except-Us?
--
Rod
> polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> considered Fri, 21 Jun 2013
>
Ironically, not quite! On another place there has been discussion over
doing our own web interface! The driver behind that has been the
combination of leeches with the desire to actually have at least a
modest level of new blood. Maybe X-No-HTTP-Except-Us?
--
Rod
Charles Bryant
Jun 21, 2013, 10:05:02 PM6/21/13
to
In article <b2ihmf...@mid.individual.net>,
means was practical at the time, even if that meant writing a feed
onto magtape. There have been online searchable archives for almost as
long (though not very well known and of limited usefulness). There
have never been borders since it grew beyond what any one person knew
about. The only rights that seem to have been consistently defended are
the right to be identified as the author of your message and the right
not to be mis-quoted (i.e. that someone quoting you should not alter
your words except by trimming unnecessary material).
polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
}The original implementation of news would have implied something like,
}within NNTP servers. Where is the border now? Isn't putting the
}information into web pages accessible to all akin to publishing a book?
Usenet news predates NNTP, and has always been distributed by whatever
}The original implementation of news would have implied something like,
}within NNTP servers. Where is the border now? Isn't putting the
}information into web pages accessible to all akin to publishing a book?
means was practical at the time, even if that meant writing a feed
onto magtape. There have been online searchable archives for almost as
long (though not very well known and of limited usefulness). There
have never been borders since it grew beyond what any one person knew
about. The only rights that seem to have been consistently defended are
the right to be identified as the author of your message and the right
not to be mis-quoted (i.e. that someone quoting you should not alter
your words except by trimming unnecessary material).
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 22, 2013, 5:20:02 AM6/22/13
to
Norman Wells
Jun 22, 2013, 4:30:02 AM6/22/13
to
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:30:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> What did the licensor do in this particular case to give his implied
> licence an unlimited term? Or if you hold the view that all implied
> licences are unlimited in term, does that also apply to the implied
> invitation and license to enter a private premises such as a shop or
> mall?
It depends what the intentions of the parties were at the time of the
creation of the spreadsheet and its use. Unless terms to the contrary
were agreed at that time, I take the view that the charity was donated
the right to use the spreadsheet for its intended purpose for as long as
it chose to do so. And I say that because, had terms been proposed at
the time that the author would remove permission to use the spreadsheet
at some future date, the charity would probably have declined the
initial offer to create and use it. Having to abandon it later on the
author's whim would cause them considerable difficulties, and they would
obviously have been best advised not to put themselves in a position
where the author could hold them to ransom.
It would be wholly unreasonable now for the author unilaterally to seek
to introduce terms that were not agreed at the time, especially as such
terms as would be so inequitable. And I'm sure no court would take that
line.
As regards shops and malls, as I said, it depends on the intentions of
the parties at the time. Shops and shoppers do not expect the
invitation to enter to extend for ever. The implied term would
therefore be time limited, ie to normal opening hours.
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:30:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> licence an unlimited term? Or if you hold the view that all implied
> licences are unlimited in term, does that also apply to the implied
> invitation and license to enter a private premises such as a shop or
> mall?
It depends what the intentions of the parties were at the time of the
creation of the spreadsheet and its use. Unless terms to the contrary
were agreed at that time, I take the view that the charity was donated
the right to use the spreadsheet for its intended purpose for as long as
it chose to do so. And I say that because, had terms been proposed at
the time that the author would remove permission to use the spreadsheet
at some future date, the charity would probably have declined the
initial offer to create and use it. Having to abandon it later on the
author's whim would cause them considerable difficulties, and they would
obviously have been best advised not to put themselves in a position
where the author could hold them to ransom.
It would be wholly unreasonable now for the author unilaterally to seek
to introduce terms that were not agreed at the time, especially as such
terms as would be so inequitable. And I'm sure no court would take that
line.
As regards shops and malls, as I said, it depends on the intentions of
the parties at the time. Shops and shoppers do not expect the
invitation to enter to extend for ever. The implied term would
therefore be time limited, ie to normal opening hours.
Message has been deleted
Norman Wells
Jun 22, 2013, 6:10:02 AM6/22/13
to
copyrightable, whereas the handbook almost inevitably will.
Davidm
Jun 22, 2013, 7:00:05 AM6/22/13
to
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:30:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
not discussed, and certainly nothing recorded and agreed. It was only
some months later, after the relationship soured, that the author
started threatening to try and prevent ongoing use of the spreadsheet.
wrote:
>It depends what the intentions of the parties were at the time of the
>creation of the spreadsheet and its use. Unless terms to the contrary
>were agreed at that time, I take the view that the charity was donated
>the right to use the spreadsheet for its intended purpose for as long as
>it chose to do so. And I say that because, had terms been proposed at
>the time that the author would remove permission to use the spreadsheet
>at some future date, the charity would probably have declined the
>initial offer to create and use it. Having to abandon it later on the
>author's whim would cause them considerable difficulties, and they would
>obviously have been best advised not to put themselves in a position
>where the author could hold them to ransom.
>
>It would be wholly unreasonable now for the author unilaterally to seek
>to introduce terms that were not agreed at the time, especially as such
>terms as would be so inequitable. And I'm sure no court would take that
>line.
>
At the time of producing the spreadsheet the subect of ownership was
>creation of the spreadsheet and its use. Unless terms to the contrary
>were agreed at that time, I take the view that the charity was donated
>the right to use the spreadsheet for its intended purpose for as long as
>it chose to do so. And I say that because, had terms been proposed at
>the time that the author would remove permission to use the spreadsheet
>at some future date, the charity would probably have declined the
>initial offer to create and use it. Having to abandon it later on the
>author's whim would cause them considerable difficulties, and they would
>obviously have been best advised not to put themselves in a position
>where the author could hold them to ransom.
>
>It would be wholly unreasonable now for the author unilaterally to seek
>to introduce terms that were not agreed at the time, especially as such
>terms as would be so inequitable. And I'm sure no court would take that
>line.
>
not discussed, and certainly nothing recorded and agreed. It was only
some months later, after the relationship soured, that the author
started threatening to try and prevent ongoing use of the spreadsheet.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages