[quote=“papa november” post=24027]
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 :)[/quote]
apoligies that this IS ACP “piffle” but it is clear in ACP50
[quote]COPYRIGHT
15. Copyright ownership is an intellectual property right involving works that may
be literary, dramatic, musical or artistic. Text, for example, is literary while
photographs and film are artistic. Within ACO MC activities the issue of copyright is
most likely to occur in connection with external use of Crown copyright photographs.
Copyright law is covered by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988. Section
163 concerns Crown copyright.
ncontrolled copy not subject to amendment
1-9
Revision 1.02 16. The Crown owns copyright of all photographs taken by ACO personnel during
the course of their official ACO duties. The MOD Crown Copyright Administrator
administers the application of Crown copyright within the MOD and its external use.
17. The following extract from DCI GEN 304/94 applies to the use of Crown
copyright material by external organizations, and therefore is relevant to ACO PR
activities.
“MOD and Service Press and PR officers [volunteer MCOs appointed by the
ACO fall within this group] have been given special dispensation for the free
issue of material and the waiving of copyright fees in respect of:
Crown copyright material for publication in newspapers, magazines
and periodicals which are published at regular intervals of three months
or less and address a regular public readership”.
18. All requests from external organizations to use resources covered by Crown
copyright for purposes not covered by the extract above must be referred to Media
Communications, HQ Air Cadets.
19. Permission is not needed for the use of ACO material covered by Crown
copyright in the production by the ACO of publicity resources such as recruiting
stands, websites and promotional literature. Permission should be sought from
Media Communications, H[/quote]
The fact that it seems clear in ACP50 is irrelevant. I could state that all “mice are a type of tree”; that is very clear but has no basis in reality.
ACP50’s statements should be clear and it should have reference to specifics in legislation to back it up, either there in the paragraph or in a foot note.
ACP50 claims crown copyright for photographs taken by “all ACO personnel”. Cadets are ACO personnel but would surely not be considered to be “an officer or servant of the crown” which is the term used in law. Something doesn’t match up and ACP50 starts looking dodgy.
ACP50 has no legal footprint in legislation or any subsequent amendments. If challenged, it would purely be an administrative issue within the organisation. Where it become blurry is the access one might have to take such images beyond what a member of the public would have, and that’s where those high paid barristers earn their money.
The solution to all of this is don’t have staff taking photos etc or if they do use someone else’s camera and get them to copyright them in their own right. Then if HQAC start trying to nick them, charge them for the privilege.
We’ve got a good relationship with one of the local rags (the editor is a RAFA and Legion member) and we get free use of any pictures their photographers take, even though they are copyright.
I doubt any Barristers (highly paid or otherwise) will ever be involved in deciding who own the IP of photographs taken… if they do then somone has got something seriously wrong !
I doubt any Barristers (highly paid or otherwise) will ever be involved in deciding who own the IP of photographs taken… if they do then somone has got something seriously wrong ![/quote]
[quote=“MRAR” post=24032][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]
[quote]Cadet Corps
6.13 Members of cadet corps and their instructors are regarded as Crown servants in certain
circumstances (see chapter 18).[/quote]
[quote]Combined Cadet Force, Sea Cadet Corps, Army Cadet Force and
Air Training Corps
18.39. Cadets are regarded as Crown Servants for the purposes of the Firearms Acts and are
exempt from the requirement to possess a firearm certificate when shooting as a member
of the corps. Furthermore, firearms may be acquired for the corps by a responsible officer
duly authorised in writing by the unit’s commanding officer without the need for a firearm
certificate (section 54(2)(b) of the 1968 Act)[/quote]
the use of “regarded” is interesting, read as if in normal circumstances not servants, but in this case we assume yes they are…
[quote=“majorchavez” post=23450]
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] The ACO got within a hairs breadth of an ET a few years back - senior members of this forum will probably know of it - but MoD settled at the last moment. If it had gone to the ET they probably would have found that in recognising the process that VRT (in that case) were indeed employed. We already know that the benefits system counts it as paid employment.
