# Talk:Fair dealing in United Kingdom law

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fair dealing in United Kingdom law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: – Quadell (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Ironholds


### Issues and questions
1a issue: There are a few places where the prose seems too technical or legal. What does "actively" mean in paragraph 2 of "Fair dealing"? The word "admit" in paragraph 4 sounds like it's a confession, though I suppose it just means "assert" or "rule" or something. Can these be reworded for non-specialists?
"me being silly" and "fixed" respectively. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Partin my misconception as well as any diverity. Mjp am 24.237.159.157 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
1a issue: I'm confused by the "not historically been important" passage in "Research and study". It's not cited, and the distinction seems very important to me, just reading it. One has to be published and made widely available, the other generally isn't. I'm not sure what this means. Should it be rewritten, removed, or what?
Cited and fixed up; tell me what you think now. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I tweaked. Hope it's okay. – Quadell (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
1a question: Semi-colons seem to be the in-thing this summer, eh?  This article has 29 (plus 5 more in the references) and sometimes has two in the same sentence. I've gone through and reworded here to avoid overuse, bringing the number down to 19. If any of these changes degrade style or accuracy in your view, feel free to undo any of them and, if necessary, fix it a different way. Are these changes acceptable to you?
Sure; seems fine! Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
2b issue: The quote "The older the issue, the less likely it is that it will be treated as having any currency" is not cited.
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
2b question: Since all sources are print sources, I don't have access to any of them and can't spotcheck. Obviously you're very experienced with "Good Articles" and with copyright issues. Can you confirm for me that you haven't copied any passages verbatim (besides what is directly quoted), and you haven't introduced issues of close paraphrasing? (I always ask this in GA reviews where I can't adequately check the sources.)
Yup; all quiet on the copyvio front. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
3a issue: The article mentions that "fair use" case law was eliminated by the Copyright Act 1911, and it says that fair dealing is currently defined by the 1988 law, but that seems to imply that "fair dealing" existed in some form between 1911 and 1988. It seems to me that an article on "Fair dealing in United Kingdom law" should cover historical use, not just the current way it's implemented.
It'd be nice; the problem is there isn't really sourcing covering it. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
3a question: The Fair use article (which focuses on U.S. law) has sections on "practical effects", "economic benefits", "parody", "on the Internet", and "common misunderstandings". Some of this information is incorporated in other section in this "Fair dealing" article, but there is no information about whether parody applies, or how this applies to the Internet. I assume there exists case law on these aspects. Would this article benefit from coverage on some of these aspects?
Well, we make no distinction between application on the internet and application anywhere else, and don't have a parody exception. I'm pretty sure I saw a line about the debate over a parody exception in one of the books I'm using, so I could always include it as "another difference between UK/US law" if that'd help? Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
4 question: In the "Research and study" section (and lede), you explain that this category does not apply to broadcasts, sound, or film, and you quote a pair of experts who criticize this limitation. But you don't explain why the limitation is in place, or what anyone might say to defend the limitation. Does anyone defend it? Was there ever a reason for it? It feels like an NPOV concern, the way it's currently written.
Can't find any sources on either bit. I believe (and this is just OR) that the lack of coverage for film sources and the like is because UK copyright law tends to be very anal; we like *spits* all-encompassing copyright law, and give ground very grudgingly. As such, any exceptions are deliberately limited, and since films were hardly likely to be common study resources in 1988.. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
6a issue: I don't believe the image is actually in the public domain, as claimed. I first asked here, and have brought the issue to wider attention here on the Commons. In the meantime, I think the image needs to be replaced or removed.
Removed. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


### Suggestions
File these under "Potentially useful feedback", not "Things required for GA status".

It would be great to have some fitting image. I don't know what. A valid pic of HRHtPoW? Something like File:Copyright Act 1911.jpg, showing the 1911 act where "fair dealing" was established?
History is pretty slight. I don't see the 1911 act available, but Wikisource has the 1956 Copyright Act it its entirety, and Article 6 spells out how fair dealing applied in this law. I'm not sure if it would be OR to include this with analysis or not (in the absence of secondary sources). But however you do it, it would be an improvement.
In the U.S., "fair use" covers parody, and Americans might assume "fair dealing" does too. On the one hand, it seems like it would be useful to describe some of the differences between UK fair dealing and other similar laws (particularly U.S. fair use). But on the other hand, it does look a bit silly and U.S.-centric when our Copyright Act 1911 article has a whole section on how the UK law differs from the U.S. law. So this decision would have to take a number of factors into account, though I think such a section would be an improvement, I don't feel 100% confident that it would. (That's why I'm not pushing the issue.)
The unanswered criticism still bugs me, but you can't go beyond the sources. Still, if you ever find anything, it'd be great.
In the final analysis, it's a great asset to have to such a good article on this copyright-related topic. Thanks for writing this, and I'm glad to pass it. – Quadell (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that a look at the history might be useful.  (IIRC, fair dealing started as common law, until it was put onto a narrow statutory footing by one of the Copyright Acts.  I think Cornish (at least in the 5th ed) includes such a historical discussion).  It might also be worth discussing the question of whether a taking is "significant" or not, it still (perhaps) being a common law defence against infringement that the taking was not significant, even if it doesn't fall into one of the narrow "fair dealing" classes.  Probably it would be a good thing to review how the law compares to the EU Copyright Directive, which arguably is now the key underpinning bit of law, and perhaps also the Berne 3-step test -- it might be worth discussing which EUCD exemptions are implemented in different ways in UK law; and also which not at all.  Finally, one could review ongoing discussions about widening what might be allowed as fair dealing  -- eg the Gowers report proposal to make U.S.-style transformative use more acceptable, or the Hargreaves report coming out against importing a U.S. style fair use regime wholesale.  Jheald (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed these from the article:

webpage-Intellectual Property Office © Crown copyright 2011 retrieved 12:38 6.10.11
website-Open Government Licence for public sector information +( link to National Archives) retrieved 12:39 6.10.11
Let's leave aside for the moment the point that Wikipedia does not need the time that a page was retrieved, or the odd "+( link to National Archives)", since both of those could be fixed.  Wikipedia's guideline on external links says that one should avoid external links to "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."  The IPO website has a four-sentence explanation of fair dealing; it adds absolutely nothing to the article. The Open Goverment Licence states "This licence does not affect your freedom under fair dealing"; giving an external link to a licence that doesn't affect fair dealing is irrelevant. BencherliteTalk 11:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)