3 ms·

Almost certainly under copyright.

• pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  I wonder what the situation is of a programme, produced by a now extinct company, that was videoed by a viewer from a BBC TV broadcast. The law in the UK allows for time-shifting only -- no format shifting nor archiving, no repeat watching (!) -- so the preservation by an ordinary viewer would have been unlawful, the use by the BBC couldn't be warranted. The law would demand the destruction (without viewing) of the copy. There is apparently now orphaned work legislation in UK (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright), but this doesn't seem to apply, this would definitely be an unlawful copy.
  • pjc50 8y ago
    The BBC are presumably the original copyright holder, or licensee. Edit: also remember that almost all of this is civil law rather than criminal law; if there's no original copyright holder to initiate an action then nothing happens.
    • timthorn 8y ago
      It's not as simple as that. They originally licensed programmes in a pre-digital world and have had issues with licenses being incompatible with some of the ways they'd like to use the material today.
    • pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      The BBC would have been a licensee, but I can't see how without being assignee or creator you could use an unlawful copy. Orphaned work legislation appears to relate only to copies that are (apparently) lawfully created but for whom the copyright holder can't be traced; and it's notable that it seems orphaned works can't be used commercially in UK. Yes, it's tortuous, but that doesn't mean it's lawful if the creators don't know of the tortfeasance. The criminality of copyright in UK is a mystery to me though. The BBC have benefitted, as have the public, several times from individual archiving. It would be great if they'd take a stand for including it in fair dealing.