We are busy every day with all kinds of content. Everybody. For fun, for marketing or because we sell the content ourselves. Then you will automatically be confronted with a number of rights and jurisdictions. If you can no longer see the forest for the trees, a bundle of felled trees offers a solution: the book #contentrecht . Now, content law is not an official jurisdiction, but in my book I deal with numerous jurisdictions with which you as a producer or consumer can get into content. In a series of three articles I deal with the most common issues that you may have to deal with. This is part one and it’s about copyright . What is content? Content is a very broad concept. It stands for content, while it does not always have to be substantive. In fact, content is everything that we can see and hear that we have made ourselves. Texts, photos, videos, infographics, music, illustrations, presentations and so on. With all types of content you have to deal with copyright. Whether you want it or not. Well, if you are a freelancer, create unique content autonomously and you do not care what someone else does with the work, you may be able to ignore copyright, but not in all other cases. Reading tip : Content-Marketing Trends 2019 Knowing who the maker / copyright holder is saves a lot of money For example, you must know who the creator or copyright holder of the work is. Many people think that if they made it, they are also the creator. Logical thought perhaps, but not always true. At the same time, clients often think that, simply because they have paid for the assignment, they will become the beneficiaries. Usually not true. Unfortunately, that causes a lot of friction and conflicts. That costs everyone a lot of time and money, while that could be prevented if all parties knew better what it was like, arranged this better in advance and could better explain to each other how it works. Let me make a start on this. Of course, the starting point is that the maker, the person who did the creative work, becomes the copyright holder. Now you should not take ‘creative work’ too heavily. It doesn’t have to be really creative, as long as it’s not too banal and trivial. Not too ordinary. More about that later. The point of departure is that the maker, the person who did the creative work, becomes the copyright holder. Sometimes there are several makers. Such as the writer duo Nicci French, the stylist and the photographer or the composer and copywriter. They make a work together and therefore have to decide together how that work can be exploited. One maker can never decide without the other. It’s like you’re married. Even if you get divorced, a certain bond always remains. You will never really get rid of each other again. All the more important to make good agreements in advance. Employees Employees also have nothing to say about what they make. If it is their job to create certain things, to design websites, to create logos, to design house styles, to deliver photos, to make videos, to put together advertisements, to write texts and whatever else, copyright straight to the employer. In fact, if an employee wants to include in his portfolio what he or she has made, he or she must make agreements about this with the employer. After all, he is the copyright holder. Is there nothing about copyright in the employment contract? Don’t be surprised! That is not necessary at all. The Copyright Act has already arranged this. The copyright of an employee goes directly to the employer. Clients often see themselves as the employer and for several reasons think that they will automatically become the copyright holder. That is usually not the case at all. Only when something is made ‘under management and supervision’ and the contractor is only an implementer who has (almost) nothing creative to contribute, does the client automatically become the copyright holder. Clients Usually a client does provide frameworks and guidelines. There are wishes. There is a purpose. But it is precisely the contractor who has the knowledge, skills and creativity to convert those wishes into a work that can achieve the goal. If the client could do this so well themselves, in many cases they would simply do it themselves. Yes, something that can be discussed, so leaving this to the law may not be too sensible. A contractor could arrange this in the general terms and conditions. Worried that these will be excluded by the client, because purchasing has learned that this is how it should be? If they then simply include it in the quotation, they often simply agree. Secretly. Very sneaky. Automatically. Without anyone even noticing! With assignments, also make sure that agreements are made about the method of use. If it is a legal person (a public institution, foundation, association or company, official) that first makes the work public , without mentioning the name of the natural person as the maker, then the legal person has become the copyright holder. Secretly. Very sneaky. Automatically. Without anyone even noticing! Well, unless you could prove that the disclosure was unlawful. He comes again: make appointments. Preferably in writing, otherwise proof becomes so difficult. Make appointments. Preferably in writing, otherwise proof becomes so difficult. In short, avoid discussion about who the copyright holder is. The Copyright Act provides handles, but does not solve everything. Legal cases are expensive. It is a shame to spend your time and money there. Prefer to spend a little more time and money on a good agreement in advance, so that everyone knows where he or she stands. The creative threshold Very nice of course, to know who the creator or copyright holder is, but what exactly? From a work. That is a wonderfully open concept. Don’t have a bag on yet. What the judiciary says about it? That it must have its own and original character and bear the stamp of the maker. It must be sufficiently creative and not be too banal and trivial. Does that provide enough clarity? No? Let me give some examples. You can have copyright on a dictionary or dictionary. By the choice of words, order and explanation of those words. You don’t have to consciously create a work, but it needs some creativity. It should not be too banal and trivial. This was the subject of discussion during years of proceedings about the book ‘The Endstra-Tapes’, in which two journalists had worked out the ‘backseat talks’ with the murdered Willem Endstra and published them in a book. Erven Endstra were against it. They found that they had the copyright to what Endstra had said. Eventually it was decided in case law that Endstra’s incoherent sentences were too banal and trivial and therefore not subject to copyright. “Well, now first” When I say “Now, first,” what do you think of? Bavaria probably. We all know where it comes from. It is recognizable. We call that good marketing, but that does not yet provide copyright. When hosting company YourHosting responded to the success of the Bavaria campaign with the radio advertisement “So, now to the cloud first”, Bavaria filed a lawsuit against YourHosting. The Brabant brewers won at the court, where they had a number of crates of beer delivered to YourHosting. The Court of Appeal of The Hague ruled that these three words were normally Dutch and therefore not protected by copyright. But on appeal, however, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that these three words were normally Dutch and therefore had no copyright on them and that therefore the YourHosting commercial was just permitted. The advertisement was already off the radio, so they had little more to do with the ruling, except that they did not have to pay compensation to Bavaria. Bavaria had cheered too early and YourHosting had a good Friday afternoon drink. Photos are usually found to be sufficiently creative. Whether they are made with a telephone or with the most expensive camera you can come up with, it doesn’t matter. Only photos in which no creative choices can be found are not subject to copyright. Consider the passport photo for proof of identity. There are so many rules and guidelines attached to it, that there is no room for even a pixel of creativity. Only photos that do not contain creative choices are not subject to copyright. So-called pack shots, product photos on a white background, simply well-highlighted, suitable for catalogs, which may contain a lot of work, but which are certainly not creative, are not subject to copyright. But all those influencers, who are at the same event and take a photo of the same table with products, where those photos are more or less the same, are subject to copyright. Maybe only a low protection, because the photos are simple, but it is copyright. Due to the advent of the internet, copyright must ‘Inspire’ Everyone can be inspired by someone else. Styles and ideas may simply be copied, because there is no copyright on them. That is why concepts and formats are difficult to protect. Everyone must be able to go their own way within a certain idea. Concepts and formats are difficult to protect. That of course does not mean that some people do not get annoyingly close. Copycats, I also call them. They do not just infringe copyright, but they do use the successful idea or style. Nothing to do about it? Well, you can always talk to someone about it. Not so much on a legal level, but explain to them that while competition is healthy, they can still do better than this and that originality, for example, takes them further. Then there is more for everyone. Forget the anger and look for a creative solution. Handy use of restrictions Remember, all the hustle and bustle because of the DSM Directive , because the so-called upload filter memes would no longer be allowed? All of them dick! Memes, parodies and quotes are explicitly permitted. No, not always recognizable by a machine. That will sometimes lead to problems. Our copyright also has more exceptions. In some cases, the press may, for example, copy messages from other press without being asked. Of course they have to mention the source properly. Quote You can also quote. There must be a suitable goal, such as announcement, assessment, polemics, scientific discourse or similar purpose. So no decoration. This makes it difficult to use images as ‘highlighted images’ if you do not have permission to use them. That featured image often does not meet one of the goals, but serves as decoration. Moreover, it is often used much larger than necessary. Another criterion is that not too much can be taken over. Only as much as is ‘socially acceptable’. And of course the name and source must not be missing, the title of a work may not be changed and the work may not be changed too much either. A joke must be possible. That is why parodies, memes and satire are allowed. A joke must be possible. That is why parodies, memes and satire are allowed. Here too it must all be socially acceptable. What we think is okay now, we may find going too far in ten years. By making use of copyright restrictions, you can conveniently use existing work for free, without your permission. Be careful that you color within the lines, otherwise you will still have compensation on your pants. Everything is allowed with permission Everything is allowed with permission. If you do not want to take any risks, you ensure that you are entitled to content from others, so that you can use it in the way you want. We also call this permission a license . Make sure that you always get this permission from the person entitled and not, for example, from the person portrayed. After all, the person portrayed does not have the copyright. Don’t feel like talking? Then use works that have been licensed in advance. Consider, for example, the system of creative commons , with which six fixed licenses can be made. Anyone can use a creative commons license for free. For example, the Flickr photo site was always known for its photos with such a license, but many more sources can be found via creativecommons.org . In addition, there are of course many paid stock sites for photos, illustrations, vector files, music and what else. Always pay attention to the license. Does this suit the way you want to use it? For example, a license is not always suitable for creating a work that is then given to a client for use. So always pay attention! Reading tip : Images for your website or blog: the ultimate list Gray roses The life of a content maker or content user is therefore not about roses. There is a lot to keep in mind when creating and using content, when allowing others to use content and when collaborating. It sometimes also seems to be a large gray area. Unfortunately, this is not something that a 2000-word article can immediately offer you a suitable solution for. Fortunately, the book #contentrecht helps with the sometimes tasty examples from practice, the handy checklists and clear infographics and flowcharts. Order #contentrecht now on managementboek.nl With content you not only have to deal with copyright, but also with portrait rights and privacy, freedom of expression and brands and advertising. These topics will be discussed in a subsequent article. Royalty-free content? Hire a CopyRobin ghostwriter. Place a test assignment Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Categories: News