The question relates to whether Crown Copyright applies to works created by members of the Air Cadet Organisation.
HQAC, through ACP50, claims that it does and so states:
Other than name-dropping the Crown Copyright Administrator, ACP50 does nothing more to elaborate on this interpretation of UK law. The law in question is the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988. Section 163 concerns Crown copyright.
As can be seen from reading section 163, Crown Copyright applies "Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties"
The Act is unhelpful with further clarifying what constitutes a “servant of the Crown” and an Internet search on the same hasn’t been that fruitful either.
Officers of the ACO, given their status as members of the RAFVR(T) seem like they would indeed count as servants of the Crown when on duty, but what of SNCO/WO CFAV, who are not part of a reserve force but are considered to be “civilians in uniform”? What of CIs? Of cadets?
Of course, none of the above are actually employees either - does that further cloud the issue?
I had this clause thrown at me when I complained to HQAC about one of my images (very widely published now) being used without my permission. I’d had zero recognition for it but was told I shouldn’t expect any because it fell under crown copyright which I think is complete tosh seeing as I’m a cadet and as you say not even a member of the reserve forces. It’s ludicrous.
(As an aside I watermark EVERYTHING now with my own name regardless of whether I took it ‘on duty’ or not)
[quote=“incubus” post=23429]The question relates to whether Crown Copyright applies to works created by members of the Air Cadet Organisation.
HQAC, through ACP50, claims that it does and so states:
Other than name-dropping the Crown Copyright Administrator, ACP50 does nothing more to elaborate on this interpretation of UK law. The law in question is the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988. Section 163 concerns Crown copyright.
As can be seen from reading section 163, Crown Copyright applies "Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties"
The Act is unhelpful with further clarifying what constitutes a “servant of the Crown” and an Internet search on the same hasn’t been that fruitful either.
Officers of the ACO, given their status as members of the RAFVR(T) seem like they would indeed count as servants of the Crown when on duty, but what of SNCO/WO CFAV, who are not part of a reserve force but are considered to be “civilians in uniform”? What of CIs? Of cadets?
Of course, none of the above are actually employees either - does that further cloud the issue?[/quote]One might assume that anyone drawing pay would probably come under Crown Copyright.
They are always careful to state that CFAVs do not draw “pay”; we claim “remuneration”.[/quote]Seeing as the two are synonyms in terms of general English use, is there actually any legal difference?
The definition of crown servant is a broad one, and would be generally accepted to include all CFAVs of cadet forces. I would however question the definition of “in the course of his duties”. If I, as an exercise supervisor, take pictures of cadets during an FTX, is that making “a work” during the course of my “duties”? I am not a PR officer or official photographer who’s duties would involve photography. I have reviewed the own own PR handbook and it implies that unofficial photos taken by staff would not come under this rule and would not be subject to crown copyright.
All that said, the Army usually gives recognition to its photographers when they publish photos, regardless of who owns the copyright. It isn’t too much to ask for the the same to happen here. Call it “professional courtesy”. For some reason the RAF don’t seem to…
I personally don’t see the issue with any of this but understand peoples annoyance. It is also a little know fact that the MOD claims copy right on all photo taken ‘within the wire’ of all establishments. So even photos taken in accommodation areas can be claimed by the MOD… Would they consider an ACO premises as MOD property? Possibly?
Also it refers to the term officer of the crown not Commissioned Officer. There for it could include anyone holding office eg. official duty. Therefor it could include a CFAV from CI thought to Officer.
The more interesting detail is of how Crown Copy Right operates. Its not on the same as other usual copyright; where by you have to have the permission of the copy right holder to publish the item. ‘They’ hold the copyright and you are able to use it for non-commercial use so long as it does not bring the organisation into disrepute at which point they can enforce the copyright to prevent its use.
Yes it is. If as I was told RFCA (as agents of the MOD) can claim Crown indemnity (?) commandeer the land and just build something if the LA got snotty about planning permission and there is nothing the LA could do about. But RFCA try and work with LAs just to maintain a good relationship.
One of the big reasons for joint CF HQs now is to reduce the MOD estate, ie rather than two plots of land and buildings, they only have one larger plot and a bigger building to accommodate both units.
They are always careful to state that CFAVs do not draw “pay”; we claim “remuneration”.[/quote]Seeing as the two are synonyms in terms of general English use, is there actually any legal difference?[/quote]
Both terms are correct, in that ‘pay’ is a form of ‘remuneration’. Remuneration is a broader term covering multiple forms of Reward, not solely ‘pay’.
I’d definitely argue that we claim ‘pay’, falling into this definition : ‘the guaranteed cash wage or salary paid to individual employees for performing their work for a contracted period of time’. It is however difficult to justify CFAVs being contracted to perform their work. I’m sure the argument could be made though…
Simple example: You do X activity that we are able to claim for, for Y number of hours and you will receive £Z pay. This was activity that wasn’t contractual, but uniformed CFAVs have a commitment to a minimum number of hours per month.
Again this brings up the debate whether CFAVs are employee’s or not. Is anyone aware of any cases where that status has been challenged in an Employment Tribunal?
[quote=“steve679” post=23454]yes i can…see the attached.
a case about disability discrimination in the ACF but is relevant to how CFAVs are seen as employees or volunteers under “employee law”
[attachment=215]volunteernotanemployee.pdf[/attachment][/quote]
The above ruling was only brought under Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995.
[quote]The EAT did not consider Mr Breaknell’s status as an employee under section 212 of the Employment Rights
Act 1996 (weeks counting in the computing period - series of connected contracts), as he had not raised it
at the Tribunal. The effect of the EAT’s decision may, therefore, be limited, so it is always advisable to take
advise from an employment solicitor when considering whether a person is an employee or not.[/quote]
There is no judgement under employment law.
[quote=“MRAR” post=23430]I had this clause thrown at me when I complained to HQAC about one of my images (very widely published now) being used without my permission. I’d had zero recognition for it but was told I shouldn’t expect any because it fell under crown copyright which I think is complete tosh seeing as I’m a cadet and as you say not even a member of the reserve forces. It’s ludicrous.
(As an aside I watermark EVERYTHING now with my own name regardless of whether I took it ‘on duty’ or not)[/quote]
Barber - If someone is not using ‘service equipment’ (i.e using their own), has not been trained as a Phot, is not being employed as a Phot - how in the name of Beezebub would the ACO/MOD make reasonable claim either morally or legally on a ‘privately’ taken photograph?
Discuss - I don’t want to hear piffle about ACP/policy but would prefer chapter and verse of copyright law. I think that this would help out more than a few with their concerns/queries
Which is precisely what I was hoping to find out in this thread. Sadly, the law as written seems to be annoyingly vague but there may well be other laws which help to clear it up.
An analysis of the precise situation would be useful, though I’d prefer not to have to resort to bringing a civil case in order for that analysis to be made.
I have started to take all of my cadet-related photographs in my own time now, unless I have been specifically engaged to act as a photographer or videographer for the ACO (as can happen form time to time ).
[quote=“barber” post=24024][quote=“MRAR” post=23430]I had this clause thrown at me when I complained to HQAC about one of my images (very widely published now) being used without my permission. I’d had zero recognition for it but was told I shouldn’t expect any because it fell under crown copyright which I think is complete tosh seeing as I’m a cadet and as you say not even a member of the reserve forces. It’s ludicrous.
(As an aside I watermark EVERYTHING now with my own name regardless of whether I took it ‘on duty’ or not)[/quote]
Not annoyingly vague, but deliberately vague, so that organisations can put their own spin on it to suit their purpose.
In this instance HQAC or service photographers couldn’t take the volume images required to promote the organisation, so IMO set the rules to suit their purpose.
The biggest problem HQAC would have in laying “Crown Copyright” to a photo etc is proving the photo was taken by a member of staff if they really wanted to push the Crown Servant angle.
I’ve got numerous photos given to us for use by us, taken by parents, sibings, friends and various other members of the families of staff and cadet. For many years I’ve had CWC taking photos of cadets on various activities. Then there are those taken by press photographers. Now we have the not so wonderful world of camera phones and the mess those photos can create, especially some taken by cadets and put onto the not so wonderful social media sites.
So all in all I reckon it’s fairly straightforward to tell them to poke it and in 99% of examples I reckon people could claim their own copyright.
).