Re: fair dealing in UK

On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 06:31, Karl-Erik Tallmo wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Can anyone with knowledge in UK law explain to me how it is possible
> that the same law (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) in
> chapter 3, section 30 says:
>
>
> "Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of
> that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe
> any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a
> sufficient acknowledgement"
>
>
>
> while section 38 says:
>
>
>
> "38.-(1) The librarian of a prescribed library may, if the
> prescribed conditions are complied with, make and supply a copy of an
> article in a periodical without infringing any copyright in the text,
> in any illustrations accompanying the text or in the typographical
> arrangement.
>
> (2) The prescribed conditions shall include the following-
>
> (a) that copies are supplied only to persons satisfying the librarian
> that they require them for purposes of research or private study, and
> will not use them for any other purpose;
>
> (b) that no person is furnished with more than one copy of the same
> article or with copies of more than one article contained in the same
> issue of a periodical; and
>
> (c) that persons to whom copies are supplied are required to pay for
> them a sum not less than the cost (including a contribution to the
> general expenses of the library) attributable to their production."
>
>
>
> Why is not the purpose of criticism included in section 38 as one of
> the non-infringing conditions? Either section 30 has precedence here
> or there seems to be some sort of normative conflict.
>
> This means for instance that I cannot order a copy from a library of
> a magazine page where there is an old ad from the 60's for the drug
> thalidomide, and then use that image as an illustration in a critical
> article I am writing about the drug industry?

I see two ways to read this:
a) The librarian doesn't need special permission to give you copies of that illustration for criticism, because it's not an infringement,

or
b) While you've got the right to make a copy for the purpose of criticism, the librarian doesn't have the right to make one for you.

Both seem slightly dodgy to me. Is there a principle in British law that provisions of a law should be interpreted so as to make sense together?

-- 
-Dave Turner                  Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"... that is, I think, sinister." -- J.G. Ballard on 
government propaganda novels