call +44 20 7096 1079

Blog


May 08, 2008 | Becky Hogge

BBC removes Doctor Who fan's knitting patterns from the Web

An Ood, knitted by Mazz Update#2: The BBC have agreed to meet with Mazz and turn her knitted designs into, at the very least, a limited edition of exclusive promotional products. Apparently the production team love her works and can't wait to get their own. Although we're pleased with this outcome, intellectual property law is still in urgent need of reform and similar situations will continue to arise until this is addressed. The Government have agreed to look at the question and popular outcry over this story shows the urgency of the matter.

Update: Thanks to this article published by The Times today, the ORG phones have been buzzing all morning. BBC Worldwide have released a statement (copied in the comments below) and Mazz has updated her homepage to reflect what's been going on. If you appreciate the work ORG does to raise the profile of digital rights issues like this one, please consider becoming an Open Rights Group supporter.

 


 

The Open Rights Group often receive calls from UK citizens who have found themselves on the wrong end of online copyright disputes. Because we're not a legal advice service, very often we cannot offer them any help. We're working on a way to change this situation - watch this space for an announcement in the Autumn. In the meantime we tend to pass these queries onto our informal law-discuss list for further analysis.

This week, Andres Guadamuz, who sits on the list, has published details of a very interesting dispute between the BBC and a knitting enthusiast and Doctor Who fan who goes by the screen name of Mazzmatazz. Mazz has been posting knitting patterns to help other people re-create characters from the cult series using only two sticks and ball of wool. Impressive? The BBC, producers of the series, didn't think so. They sent Mazz a letter, which states:

"We note that you are supplying DR WHO items, and using trade marks and copyright owned by BBC. You have not been given permission to use the DR WHO brand and we ask that you remove from your site any designs connected with DR WHO. Please reply acknowledging receipt of this email, and confirm that you will remove the DR WHO items as requested."

Fearing legal action, Mazz has now removed the knitting patterns from the Web.

 

As part of our response to OfCom's public service broadcasting review, we'll be making arguments similar to those we made last Summer during the iPlayer/DRM debate. That is, that in the future, organisations like the BBC with a public service remit should have a role in stimulating the creative economy in the UK, by allowing budding creators to remix its content. Even if this is only allowed to happen in a non-commercial context, the BBC could seed a new generation of creators and remixers, just as it nurtured a generation of computer games developers in the 1980s with its computer literacy project, centred around the iconic BBC micro.

This approach doesn't mean giving all the BBC's content away for free, although in some situations that might be appropriate. But it does mean being more flexible in the approach the BBC takes to controlling who gets to use its content and how. The approach the BBC have taken with Mazz's knitting patterns demonstrate a distinct lack of flexibility. It is quite possible that through transforming the characters in Doctor Who into knitting patterns, Mazz may have infringed upon the BBC's copyright. But it's hard to see how Mazz's non-commercial knitting patterns actually damage the commercial interests of the BBC.

The situation also touches on the growing need for UK copyright law to allow transformative use of works. In 2006, the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property asked the UK Intellectual Property Office to propose amendments to the European Copyright Directive that allowed for creative, transformative or derivative works. In ORG's recent submission to the UK IPO, we urged the UK IPO to take this recommendation forward. For a compelling legal analysis of the issues that Mazz's sitaution touches upon, including the tricky area of transformative use of works, visit Andres's blog, Technollama.

[Read more] (70 comments)


May 06, 2008 | Becky Hogge

Thanks to all ORG Election Observers!

An ORG election observer A huge thanks to everyone who devoted their day to democracy last week, and joined the Open Rights Group Election Watch 2008. Over the next month, we'll be compiling a report of what we saw at the elections, and specifically at the electronic count of 7 million ballot papers in Alexandra Palace, ExCel and Olympia on 2 May.

Writing the report will involve collating the findings of our nearly 30-strong team of volunteer observers, each of whom was officially accredited by the Electoral Commission. We'll also be undertaking detailed analysis of rejected ballot figures, and sifting through reports commissioned by London Elects from KPMG and Deloitte on the software and hardware used at the electronic count, and on London Elect's business continuity processes. We expect to publish our final report in mid-June. Watch this space!

[Read more] (3 comments)


April 30, 2008 | Michael Holloway

Supporter update - April 2008

Its that time again and this month we have news on our vacancy for a campaigner, electionwatch '08 and the usual round-up of press and activities.

Click to read the April 2008 supporter update

[Read more]


April 25, 2008 | Becky Hogge

ORG is hiring!

Thanks to a generous grant from the Open Society Institute, we're seeking to expand our campaigning team. We're looking for an experienced and committed digital rights campaigner to amplify our work on issues around copyright reform and copyright infringement, taking the concerns of ORG and its supporters to Europe and beyond.

The right candidate will be a self-starter, someone who can set their own goals, delegate and prioritise and who has the ability to initiate and successfully execute projects. It's an exciting opportunity to be part of a small, committed team working to protect civil liberties and consumer rights in the digital age.

If you're interested in applying, please read this job description for further details about the position. CVs and covering letters should be sent in .pdf format to michael [AT] openrightsgroup.org by midnight on Sunday 11 May. Interviews will take place in central London in the period 14-16 May.

[Read more] (1 comments)


April 23, 2008 | Becky Hogge

FIPR calls on Home Office to withdraw misleading advice on Phorm

The Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) has today sent the Home Office in-depth legal analysis [pdf] of the Phorm behavioural advertising system. The analysis has been produced by FIPR's General Counsel (and ORG Advisory Council member) Nicholas Bohm, and complements the technical analysis produced by Richard Clayton earlier this month [pdf]. The analysis shows that Phorm's systems involve interception of communications contrary to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, fraud, contrary to the Fraud Act, and therefore unlawful processing of personal data, contrary to the Data Protection Act. It states that individual directors and managers of the Internet Service Providers involved could be criminally liable for these offences, if roll out of Phorm goes ahead.

FIPR want the Home Office to withdraw informal advice they issued in February, which FIPR say wrongly concluded the system is lawful, creating "an obstacle to the just enforcement of the law". At the public meeting attended by Phorm and their critics last week, Simon Davies of 80/20 Thinking Ltd identified the legality of Phorm under RIPA as a legitimate issue, but urged participants not to get bogged down in a question which, in the end, can only be decided in a court of law. Hopefully, FIPR's legal analysis will bring UK citizens one step closer to an answer to the question "Is Phorm legal?". As Richard Clayton observes:

"The Home Office's superficial analysis said that the system would be lawful. Given their batting average at the High Court, relying upon their opinion was always unwise - this new paper spells out the errors they have made, and makes it essential that their report is withdrawn."

 

Previous posts on Phorm:

[Read more] (12 comments)


April 10, 2008 | Becky Hogge

European Parliament condemns "3 strikes" approach

This morning, the European Parliament has voted to condemn member state plans to disconnect suspected illicit filesharers from the internet. In a fairly narrow vote, MEPs adopted an amendment to the so-called Bono Report on the Cultural Industries, which

"Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise that the Internet is a vast platform for cultural expression, access to knowledge, and democratic participation in European creativity, bringing generations together through the information society; calls on the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of Internet access."

The report is not legally binding, but it does signifiy resistance among MEPs to measures currently being implemented in France to disconnect suspected illicit filesharers. This is especially relevant as France will take over the European presidency in July, and many fear that President Sarkozy would use the opportunity to push the so-called "Oliviennes" strategy Europe-wide.

The UK government will consult UK citizens on their plans to tackle illicit filesharing this Spring. We've already blogged about ORG's objections to UK proposals here. In short, and as the European Parliament have recognised today, they are disproportionate, they lack consumer safeguards and they won't stop illicit filesharing.

[Read more] (12 comments)


April 09, 2008 | Becky Hogge

Phorm: public meeting announced for next Tuesday

Last month, we announced that Phorm, the company whose technology delivers targetted ads based on where you visit on the web, were planning to hold a public meeting to face their critics. Details of the meeting have now been announced.

When: Tuesday, 15 April, 1830 - 2030 Where: The Lecture Theatre, Brunei Gallery, School of Oriental & African Studies, London (map)

The meeting is being hosted by 80/20 Thinking Ltd, and you can read more details about it on their website. Although the meeting is free for all to attend, 80/20 Thinking are asking that you send them an email to info@8020thinking.com to let them know you're coming along. From the 80/20 Thinking website:

80/20 Thinking, with the full cooperation of Phorm, has decided to organise a public meeting as part of the PIA (privacy impact assessment) process. We intend to use feedback from this event to inform the PIA. A final version of the PIA will be published by the end of April 2008.

Attendees are encouraged to read the technical analysis produced by Richard Clayton [pdf] in advance of the meeting.

The Information Commissioner's Office have today released a further statement on Phorm, making clear their belief that any systems using Phorm (such as BT's webwise) need to seek the consent of their customers on an opt-in (and not an opt-out) basis.

I'll be going to the public meeting next Tuesday, so if you'd like to ask a question, but you can't make it yourself, please leave it in the comments.

[Read more] (19 comments)


April 08, 2008 | Glyn Wintle

Fighting the data retention directive

The Open Rights Group is proud to be one of the 43 civil liberties NGOs and professional associations based in 11 European countries today submitting a brief to the European Court of Justice (PDF).The amicus brief asks the Court to annul an EU directive ordering the blanket registration of telecommunications and location data of 494 million Europeans.

As the document lays out, data retention violates the right to respect for private life and correspondence, freedom of expression and the right of providers to the protection of their property:

"While it threatens to inflict great damage on society, its potential benefit appears, overall, to be little. Data retention can support the protection of individual rights only in few and generally less important cases. A permanent, negative effect on crime levels is not to be expected... [With data retention in place] citizens constantly need to fear that their communications data may at some point lead to false incrimination or governmental or private abuse of the data. Because of this, traffic data retention endangers open communication in the whole of society."

 

[Read more] (6 comments)


google plusdeliciousdiggfacebookgooglelinkedinstumbleupontwitteremail