Screenshots and copyright law

[MrsTwosheds]

Good evening all

This is a general query, if I may, please, prompted by discussion with several friends on the subject of screenshots.

As a creative sort of person, I often come across interesting or striking images which I’d like to record (if not for posterity, then at least for a couple of weeks while I consider their worth as inspiration for a forthcoming or possible project). There are also scores of step-by-step tutorials and sewing patterns online, which are, presumably, for people to copy and use (even off-line), I have no wish to replicate these in any way, share/send them to anyone or anything else which would be considered remotely threatening to the owner of the copyright (if there is one).

The screenshot offers (or seems to) a quick way of recording an interesting idea for later research, and it seems widely used by all and sundry (at least by the all and sundry with whom I’m acquainted) for that purpose. As far as I am aware, most use the images as a library for personal inspiration or instructional use only.

I had never really considered the copyright implications of this, as it seems to be a relatively common practice (and social media sites are awash with screenshots), but I often wonder - is it ever OK? I don’t think it falls under ‘fair use’, but it seems strange that, in an age where there is a vast and inspirational access to images, none of them can legally be used for reference and then kept for later use. Having grown up in an age where books and magazines (which could be kept for years and revisited at will) were the main source of images, there’s something distinctly lacking here.

Any thoughts or advice gratefully received, guys. Many thanks.

[AndyJ]

Hi Sally,

As you say, it's a very commonplace activity and certainly amounts to copying as far as the law is concenred. But the vast majority of such copying would be covered by the fair dealing exception in section 29 of the CPDA because it is most definitely done for the purpose of personal study or research. The place where the protection provided by this exception might be weak is that in most cases the copier will not credit for the author as required by the exception* in order for it to be fair dealing. But since this copying is, in the main, an entirely private activitiy the copyright owners are unlikely to ever discover this omission. Where things become distinctly sketchy is when the images are then reposted or otherwise published without the required credit. However, as you say, it's such a widespread and accepted practice to repost other people's tweets, memes and similar trivial items, I tthink it would be a brave or foolish copyright owner who tried to test this in court unless the reposting was clearly done for commercial reasons.

Andy

* Note that the private study part of the exception in subsection (1C) implies that a credit may not be required in this specfic case, because it doesn't replicate the wording in subsection (1) which applies to research. I don't think this proposition has been tested in court. since this modification to the text was introduced in 2014.

[MrsTwosheds]

Aah…..that’s marvellous news, thanks, Andy.

I was just pondering how much of my research stuff should be jettisoned in the interests of copyright, and I now think probably none. Hurrah!

Thank you as always for your excellent and sensible advice - you’re an absolute treasure

[AndyJ]

Just to elaborate on my footnote above. The wording of section 29 (1A) was altered to match a new provision that was introduced at the same time (2014), namely section 28B which provided for the entirely unambiguous private copying exception, and which did not require a credit to be given to the original author. This exception had been introduced as something which the Government believed was permitted by Article 5(2)(b) of the EU Information Society (InfoSoc) Directive. However when the legality of this new section was tested in the UK High Court in 2015 it was declared not to conform with the Directive since there was no provision made for compensating rights holders. As a result section 28B remains in limbo: neither repealed nor in force due to it having been quashed. Obviously now that we are no longer subject to EU laws the Government could re-introuduce the exception as originally intended, without a problem, but have chosen not to do so. Nonetheless the concurrent amendment to section 29 (1A) remains in effect.

[MrsTwosheds]

Thanks for the update, Andy. Gosh, it’s a complicated old business!

As ever, your understanding of the whole shebang and erudite support has proved invaluable to me (and, in fact, to us all).
I will do my level best to ensure that my next project won’t be the sewing of mailbags