A newspaper article implied that the Duchess of York was making money from a Youtube channel where she reads children's books. I think some of them were her own works (eg Bugger The Little Helicopter) but several of the titles were popular stories by famous authors.
Can she legally do that unilaterally, or would she have to gain the other authors' consents and pay them royalties?
AJ
I think some of them were her own works (eg Bugger The Little Helicopter)
It's Budgie the Little Helicopter
Can she legally do that unilaterally, or would she have to gain the other authors' consents
Probably not and probably. However she has access to a small army of lawyers and accountants to take care of that stuff for her.
and pay them royalties?
She is royalty. /smartass
Seriously, that would be up to each author individually. I can see at least some of them giving a royalty free license for what it is.
It's Budgie the Little Helicopter
This is a sex story site. I adapted the title appropriately ;-)
AJ
This is a sex story site. I adapted the title appropriately ;-)
It's a little helicopter, it's probably underage. :-P
It's a little helicopter, it's probably underage. :-P
Once upon a time, there was a 14yo, flat-chested, hairless little helicopter who loved to be buggered.
(Too near the knuckle?)
AJ
Did you check if the stories were out of copyright and in the Public Domain, as the majority of children's stories are now Public Domain? Also, I doubt any author would refuse a UK Royal the right to have a limited copyright usage because it allows them such great PR to say it's used by the Royals.
the majority of children's stories are now Public Domain
I find that assertion strange and troubling. Do children's stories have a shorter copyright?
All of titles mentioned in connection with the ex-Royal ligger were relatively recent.
AJ
I find that assertion strange and troubling.
He may be referring to older US based books. US law prior to 1976 had a much shorter copyright term for everything. 28 years renewable once and once only for a second 28 years.
The US 1976 Copyright act brought US copyright terms inline with the Berne Convention, but it was not retroactive.
In 1998 the US Congress passed a copyright term extension going beyond the Berne Convention and this was retro active to anything still under live copyright.
So pre 1976 works as early as 1942 could now be under the life + 75 years term.
However renewal under the 1906 copyright act was NOT automatic. And people are discovering that a lot of works in the range of 1942-1970 that were thought to be live copyrights were never properly renewed, so the copyrights were expired before the 1998 extension was passed.
I find that assertion strange and troubling. Do children's stories have a shorter copyright?
All of titles mentioned in connection with the ex-Royal ligger were relatively recent.
Children's stories have the same copyright that applies to all stories as of the time they were written. The great majority of which are now outside of the copyright of their day.
The original post did not mention when the stories involved were written, so very recent ones may be in copyright, but the very old ones won't be.
The original post did not mention when the stories involved were written, so very recent ones may be in copyright, but the very old ones won't be.
For some definitions of recent. With the Berne Convention term at Life + 50 and the US now at Life + 75, they wouldn't have to be all that recent to have live copyrights. To be off copyright they would have to be at least pre 1970 (the author died in 1970 at the most recent). If you ask me, 1970 is not very recent.
If you ask me, 1970 is not very recent.
actually, 1970 is recent, unless you're very short sighted or have memory issues.
actually, 1970 is recent, unless you're very short sighted or have memory issues.
1. I'm 50. I don't call half a century ago recent.
2. You didn't just say recent above, you said very recent. Way to move the goal posts.
2. You didn't just say recent above, you said very recent. Way to move the goal posts.
You're the one who claims 1970s was very recent. For long term things like copyright and history I see very recent as being since 1990, and recent as being since 1960.
BTW I first did part-time paid work for others in the mid 1960s and was doing full-time paid work in 1970.
For long term things like copyright and history I see very recent as being since 1990, and recent as being since 1960.
Sorry, I read the original comment by you that started this exchange backwards.
However, I have to disagree on 1960 being recent since it's before I was born.
However, I have to disagree on 1960 being recent since it's before I was born.
but well after I was born - which shows it's a relative term and not an absolute one.
The original post did not mention when the stories involved were written, so very recent ones may be in copyright, but the very old ones won't be.
IIRC, all the stories mentioned were British and recent.
AJ
IIRC, all the stories mentioned were British and recent.
could be, but only 1 story was mentioned in the post and it's publication date wasn't given. Thus no details leaves it to the generic answer I gave.
UK laws get murky when they involve the British Royals. I doubt you'll find a solid answer to that question here.
Fair use on YouTube
Fair use is a legal doctrine that says you can reuse copyright-protected material under certain circumstances without getting permission from the copyright owner.
Fair use guidelines
Different countries have different rules about when it's okay to use material without the copyright owner's permission. For example, in the United States, works of commentary, criticism, research, teaching, or news reporting might be considered fair use. Some other countries have a similar idea called fair dealing that may work differently.
Courts analyze potential fair uses according to the facts of each specific case. You'll probably want to get legal advice from an expert before uploading videos that contain copyright-protected material.
I would think the term "recent history" would depend on the history being discussed. recent history of computers would be different then the recent history of the written word.
recent history of computers would be different then the recent history of the written word.
Nonsense! Everyone knows Saint Bill Gates created computers and the written word at the same time. Entering 0 as a spreadsheet date will tell you when ;-)
AJ
Hey, an opportunity to talk about my history! In 1970 I was a first lieutenant in the Signal Corps in Wurtzburg, Germany in the 3rd Infantry Division. (Rock of the Marne.) I met my future wife at the Officers Club, she needed a fourth for bridge, when we got down to 3, we played Hearts and she gave me the queen of spades 3 times. I married her to get even.
In 1960 I was 15 and in late November became 16. I was a sophomore (wise fool) in Hampton High School whose mascot is a Crab (Hampton fishermen caught crabs for a living). My schools have had beavers, crabs, huskies, and turtles as mascots. Not particularly interesting. My MBA in Insurance and Risk Management was at The College of Insurance, so I was a TCI Turtle. TCI is merged out of existance now, into the School of Business at some New York University. It isn't even a separate division, just a department within the School. But you have to listen to me, I have a Master's Degree!
I was a first lieutenant in the Signal Corps in Wurtzburg, Germany in the 3rd Infantry Division.
Whose 3rd Infantry Division?
3rd Infantry Division
"The 3rd Infantry Division (nicknamed The Rock of the Marne) is a combined arms division of the United States Army based at Fort Stewart, Georgia. It is a direct subordinate unit of the XVIII Airborne Corps and U.S. Army Forces Command.
3rd Infantry Division (United States) - Wikipedia"
