@NCHLT Skyscrapersim I've noticed you had false copyright claims made by Beno. You should know under UK law there's exceptions to copyright for Criticism, review, reporting current events, Parody, caricature and pastiche.
Texts from the UK Government website:
Criticism, review and reporting current events
Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of reporting current events is allowed for any type of copyright work other than a photograph. In each of these cases, a sufficient acknowledgement will be required.
As stated, a photograph cannot be reproduced for the purpose of reporting current events. The intention of the law is to prevent newspapers or magazines reproducing photographs for reporting current events which have appeared in competitor’s publications.
Parody, caricature and pastiche
There is an exception to copyright that permits people to use limited amounts of copyright material without the owner’s permission for the purpose of parody, caricature or pastiche.
For example a comedian may use a few lines from a film or song for a parody sketch; a cartoonist may reference a well known artwork or illustration for a caricature; an artist may use small fragments from a range of films to compose a larger pastiche artwork.
It is important to understand, however, that this exception only permits use for the purposes of caricature, parody, or pastiche to the extent that it is fair dealing.
Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing’. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting.
‘Fair dealing’ is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?
Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:
does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair
is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used
The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question.
I do mention there's a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) exemption on journalism which includes reporting events.
Text from the Information Commissioner's Office website:
Journalism, academia, art and literature
This exemption can apply if you process personal data for:
artistic purposes; or
Together, these are known as the ‘special purposes’.
The exemption relieves you from your obligations regarding the UK GDPR’s provisions on:
all the principles, except the security and accountability principles;
the lawful bases;
the conditions for consent;
the conditions for processing special categories of personal data and data about criminal convictions and offences;
processing not requiring identification;
the right to be informed;
all the other individual rights, except rights related to automated individual decision-making including profiling;
the communication of personal data breaches to individuals;
consultation with the ICO for high risk processing;
international transfers of personal data; and
cooperation and consistency between supervisory authorities.