The following article was published in the Journal of the Society of Archivists, Volume 23, No.2, 2002. It describes how copyright laws apply to copying by libraries, museums, archives and galleries, either on behalf of their users or eg for the production of digitised images; and it discusses the problems in applying copyright to a sector where the distinctions between types of organisations and between types of collections is increasing being blurred under political imperatives for cross-domain working.

The article was published before copyright law was amended by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003. However little has changed. The main change brought about by the 2003 regulations is that the exception to copyright which permits copying for the purposes of research, now applies only to copying for the purposes of non-commercial research. The other problems highlighted by the article remain eg:

• Copyright applies in different ways to different institutions - libraries and archives are treated differently to museums and galleries; and not all libraries and archives are treated the same.
• Different rules apply to different types of copyright works.
• The 1988 Act has not kept pace with technology and the need for institutions to digitise their collections and to permit free access to digitised images.

The Information Society directive gave to the UK government an opportunity to update its copyright laws relating to copying by libraries and other institutions in the culture and heritage sector. Unfortunately the government did not take this opportunity. While some may have regarded this as a good thing, as worse changes were foretold, in many ways it was a missed opportunity and one which should be remedied as soon as possible.

Copyright and collections: recognising the realities of cross-sectoral integration.

By Allison Coleman and Susan J Davies¹

The aim of this article is to highlight anomalies in applying copyright controls to collections within archives, museums and libraries, both for individual institutions and for the partnerships and alliances which represent current moves towards cross-sectoral integration. Some arise from the specific terms of existing controls while others have gained new significance from the advance of modern technology. Careful thought is required in all cases, but never more so than at a time when access to cultural and learning resources is high on the popular agenda. In the words of Chris Smith, as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, "A landscape where the knowledge and information held by museums, archives and libraries is open and accessible to us all makes society a richer place for everyone"²

A major difficulty facing archivists, librarians, and museum and gallery curators, as part of their regular duties, is in advising users of their institutions just what they may legitimately copy under copyright laws and the various copyright licences which may apply to materials in their collections. Users may legitimately copy materials which are still in copyright either by obtaining the permission from the copyright owner, or by relying on one of the many exceptions and limitations to copyright set out in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This article focuses on the second of those two methods of copying legitimately, namely the exceptions and limitations to copyright set out in Chapter 3 of the 1988 Act, and on the proposed amendments to that Act contained in the recent EU directive on copyright and the information society (May 2001)³. It considers variation and change in the nature and functions of libraries, archives, museums and galleries, pointing out the anomalies in the practical application of the 1988 Act to copying by those institutions and looks forward to the rationalisation heralded by the EU directive, but warns of some new problems in its practical application to copying for the purposes of research.

The exceptions and limitations to copyright are very important in practice. They counterbalance the rights of copyright owners and are the guardians of what is often described as the public domain. Copyright gives to copyright owners an exhaustive list of exclusive rights: to copy a work; to issue copies to the public; to rent or lend the work to the public; to perform, show or play the work in public; to broadcast it or include it in a cable programme; or to make an adaptation of a work, but each of these rights has its exceptions and limitations. These are set out in the Act under broad headings such as fair dealing, education, public administration and the rights of lawful users of computer programs, but the ones with which we are concerned in this article are the exceptions and limitations relating to archives and libraries.

Unfortunately the 1988 Act differentiates between archives and libraries and has no special provisions relating to copying by museums and galleries. It also differentiates between the types of works which may be reproduced and literary, dramatic and musical works are treated quite differently from artistic works. It is not therefore surprising that these apparent anomalies are causing increasing difficulty in the practical application of the legal controls in the workplace.

In recent decades, libraries, archives, museums and galleries have been advising users mainly on their rights to photocopy or to photograph items in their collections. This has moved on to advice on the use of small hand held scanners and digital cameras for individual research purposes. But now, with digitisation the buzz activity of the new millennium and the focus of access initiatives and funded projects, libraries, archives and museums etc have moved beyond being providers of information to become publishers, and this changes very considerably the nature of the copyright problems these institutions have to address. The traditional distinction between a library, an archive, a museum or a gallery disappears when artefacts/assets of the cultural heritage are displayed on the web or in a multi-media package. The old divisions of the 1988 Act, with some provisions applying to libraries, some to libraries and archives, but none specifically to museums and galleries become redundant when both the message and the messenger are merged.

The comment below will note the progressive merger of the institutions and the media they handle, both through natural overlap and by design, and then consider how this is reflected by changes in the law introduced by the EU directive on copyright and related rights in the information society. The legal consideration is underpinned by basic definitions of the institutions and of the nature of their responsibilities in order to clarify the legal perspective, but apologies are offered in advance to professional colleagues in archives, museums and libraries for any perceived over-simplification of definition.

The institutions

Definitions of libraries, archives, museums and galleries are not easy and currently becoming less so. Libraries are traditionally repositories of printed material but they have now added modern electronic and audio-visual material to their collections and facilities, as they are increasingly regarded as repositories of multi-media leisure resources and centres for community information. Of course, libraries exist in many varieties. There are those which provide broad public services and others which are specialised for historical or special interest purposes. While many are in public ownership, others are privately owned by businesses or individuals. Their particular form is governed by purpose, ranging from local, general service public libraries to specialised picture, newspaper and film libraries, and their settings and holdings are infinitely variable.

Archives as traditionally defined comprise the documentation which accumulates naturally over time, as the product of the business of organisations and individuals, and which is retained for its enduring usefulness and historical value to the creator. Archives are therefore unique and do not exist in multiple copies in a print run as do books. It follows that their management is different, and dominated by preservation needs. By today, the range of media has expanded to include material in digital and audio-visual form. A specific complication relating to definition arises in the case of special interest collections, actively assembled, on such themes as dance, theatre, or areas of social interest, to which the term 'archive' is now popularly applied. Printed material may predominate, alongside a range of other media, but all serving the needs of special interest researchers.

Archives are held by a variety of establishments, but dominated on the one hand by a small number of large institutions, such as the Public Record Office (PRO) at Kew, which is responsible for the records of central government and, on the other hand, by the network of county/local record offices throughout England, Wales and Scotland⁴, which hold the records of local government, together with large numbers of collections of private origin, eg landed estates, business and industry, churches and chapels. Universities, businesses and a variety of charitable organisations are among the range of other bodies which may hold significant collections of archival material which are open to public use. Many such archives and records have evidential value in the legal sense as well being of historical and/or cultural importance.

The public image of archives is much less clearly defined than that of libraries, largely because fewer people are aware of the nature of archives while most could identify a library as a repository of books! Additional complexity rises from the Public Record status of the archives of central government. While most are held by the PRO at Kew (for England and Wales, and the National Archives in Scotland and PRONI in Northern Ireland), a significant proportion is in the care of local record offices with PRO approval, because they are locally relevant. All Public Records which are open to public inspection are covered by legal provisions which include the duty to provide copies on request⁵, subject to any conservation constraints. Many Public Records are also subject to Crown copyright, (although copyright fees are waived in this case), thus adding an extra element to the range of copying practices operated by local record offices which must apply the Public Records Rules alongside the various controls which govern the copying of other archives in their care.

Museums are more clearly established in the public perception as repositories of "old" artefacts and three-dimensional objects ranging from minute fragments of stone to costume, fine art, industrial machinery and even historic buildings, according to the foundation's aims and the collecting policy of the institution. The variety is huge, both in scale and purpose, from national institutions that reflect Victorian principles of education for all and civic dignity, to small, even one-room establishments on special themes. Museums share with archives the concern for unique, irreplaceable items, also the fact that they differ from libraries in the technicalities of managing their collections and providing public access.

Galleries are particularly difficult to define in that most museums display at least some of their collections in rooms/spaces called galleries, while fine and applied art has a very strong claim to use of the word for major display areas if not for the institutions themselves, eg the National Portrait Gallery, the Walker Art Gallery etc. It is also used in the catch-all phrase "Museums and Galleries". There is no doubt about the very close connection between galleries and museums, and also with archives and libraries for the present purposes of discussion.

While these definitions may be slightly simplistic, the variety in each sector and the potential for overlap results in an immensely complex pattern in terms of copyright legislation. Many public libraries hold a local studies collection, which often includes some original archival material and certainly maps, newspapers and photographs. Most local record offices maintain a reference collection of printed works which may constitute the best local "library" provision of its kind and which supports the archival collections. The archives may also include images and fine art. The papers of an artist, for example, might be rich in images.

Museums are similarly complex and variable. They will certainly hold reference collections of books to support the work of the curators and may even have a designated "library". Art galleries, too, have libraries, as essential components of curatorial expertise, while the documentation relating to provenance of both artefacts and art works is archival in nature. The Tate Gallery, for example, has a rich library and archive which is currently (at the time of writing) moving to new premises which will provide improved public facilities.

Such is the dilemma of definition, whether seen in the eclectic private collections of 18th and 19th century 'gentlemen' antiquarians, archaeologists and scholars, or in the wide-ranging treasures of the museums and galleries founded in Victorian times which saw no boundaries between arts and sciences or between archaeology and natural history on the one hand, and fine and applied art on the other.

Even those outside the government framework, such as the National Trust, illustrate the lack of clarity on the ground in separating libraries, museums and archives. The National Trust, an independent charity, cares for historic buildings, plus often with their contents entrusted to them, and provides access for the public. A large historic house will often contain a library, an archival collection, fine and applied art and a wealth of artefacts.

New directions

Inherent difficulties of definition and of blurred boundaries are now (since 1997) being compounded by government policy in promoting "cross domain" working between the three sectors of libraries, archives and museums. A new strategic body, Resource: the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries (established 2000) is leading this work and promoting the development of regional cultural agencies (already advanced in England) to represent these joint interests and to facilitate further collaborative effort, such as in the field of digitisation.

The wider educational, cultural and social agenda is a similar driving force, giving high priority to education, lifelong learning, social inclusion and measures to improve access to education and culture, while advocating the use of ICT to advance this work. Museums (and galleries), archives and libraries are seen as key contributors, and active encouragement for cross-domain working is part of the common purpose to progress the wider agenda. The recent report by the Regional Museums Task Force on the future of regional museums in England, Renaissance in the Regions, a new vision for England's museums (Resource, 2002), provides an excellent overview of the ways in which museums and related bodies are responding to such directional influence. Furthermore, the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have all reflected this central policy while working out the details for their own stakeholders. In short, government policy is currently changing the objectives and the working practices of publicly funded museums, libraries and archives in unprecedented ways, with emphasis on access, outreach, drawing in new audiences and educational provision, and on co-working and exploiting the potential of ICT. Educational networks, electronic portals, and digitisation projects have proliferated, both national and local, and all are seeking high quality content material. Copyright and other intellectual property rights have central importance in this developing situation.

The 1988 Act and the library privileges

Basically, the 1988 Act allows librarians, and in some cases archivists, to perform certain tasks without infringing copyright⁶, namely:

• copying by librarians of single copies of articles in periodicals, or of parts of published works, for users who require them for research or private study (sections 38 and 39);
• lending books within the public lending right scheme (section 40A);
• supplying copies of articles or published editions to other libraries for stock; and making surrogate/replacement copies for preservation purposes (sections 41 and 42);
• supplying copies of unpublished works (section 43);
• making a copy of an article of cultural or historical importance or interest before export from the UK (section 44)⁷.

Division of institutions within the Act

The 1988 Act is highly divisive and does not reflect in any way the changes to the structure and functions of libraries, archives, museums and galleries outlined above. Some sections of the Act (sections 37, 40A, 42, 43, 44) apply to both libraries and to archives; others, only to libraries (sections 38, 39, 41); but none to archives alone. Museums and galleries are not mentioned at all. However, an archive, a museum or a gallery with a library section eg holding books on art, architecture, family history etc, may well be treated as a library, at least in relation to its library collection, for the purposes of the rules under discussion; and an archive section in any of those institutions may be treated as an archive. But what is the difference in practice between a library and an archive and why is it enshrined in law?

One difference may well be that, as archives are primarily composed of unique, unpublished works that were created as part of the normal process of administration, they were not created to be published, displayed or exploited commercially, indeed many, if not most, are too large and unwieldy for exploitation as a whole. As a result their use in the course of research rarely has any significant impact on the economic interests of the copyright owners⁸ who, in the case of archival material will almost always be its author or authors, rather than a publisher or other commercially minded individual.⁹ This is important in applying the terms of the EU directive, so much of which is directed to bolstering the commercial interests of copyright owners, and would imply that any regime providing exceptions and thus permitting more copying by archivists and by users of archives ought to be more liberal. This may indeed be the reasoning behind section 43 of the 1988 Act which permits the copying by a librarian or archivist without consent of the copyright owner of certain unpublished works - the main holdings of an archive.

Continuing the theme of division of the sector, not even all libraries are treated in the same way under the current regime. The Copyright (Librarians and Archivists) (Copying of Copyright Material) Regulations 1989, (the Library Regulations) state that sections 38 and 39 of the 1988 Act¹⁰ apply only to a narrower class of libraries - such as local authority libraries, school libraries, National Libraries etc so long as they are not conducted for profit. Sections 38 and 39 refer to those acts which are most likely to affect the commercial interests of publishers - copying by librarians of articles in periodicals and of parts of published works.¹¹ In this narrower class of libraries, making a single copy for a reader is viewed as part of the public service (educative and informational) function of a public sector, non-profit-making institution and is exempt from copyright infringement so long as carried out within prescribed limits. The exception does not however apply to any other type of library, a subtlety which might elude the diligent researcher who has travelled from afar.

By way of contrast, all libraries may make and supply copies for other libraries under sections 41, 42 and 43, but profit-based libraries may not receive copies made under these sections for their own stock. They are expected to purchase them in the usual way or to pay a licence fee for copies of works that are out of print. Publishers are not expected to lose royalties when the aim is to stock a profit-making library. That would be unfair.

Division according to the type of copyright work

One reason why museums and galleries are perhaps not specifically referred to in the libraries and archives sections of the 1988 Act¹² may be that these sections relate to the copying etc of literary, dramatic or musical works, or to any illustrations accompanying such work or to the typographical arrangement of a published edition. Artistic works and artefacts, which often (and don't forget natural history) form the main part of the collections of museums and galleries, are therefore largely outside the scope of the exceptions and are therefore covered by normal copyright principles of no copying without consent. Thus, it was presumably thought unnecessary to include the main repositories of works of art in the library and archive provisions. However, limiting the library and archive exceptions to literary, dramatic or musical works, accompanying illustrations and typographic arrangements, also has the additional consequence of also taking out all sound and moving images, photographs and of course, maps. Given that many old maps and photographs are unpublished and/or of unknown authorship and thus, in very general terms, often in copyright until 2039, this is a considerable restriction on copying. In some circumstances, maps may be self-copied by a library or archive user under the fair dealing provisions, but staff cannot copy in reliance on the library exceptions; and thus fragile maps which cannot be entrusted to the non-specialist and to the photocopying machine cannot therefore be copied without specific permission of the right holder.

Many old films, sound recordings and photographs (including glass negatives and dangerous, cellulose nitrate film) are deteriorating and need copying for preservation purposes. It would be a sad state of affairs, and in some cases little short of a national disaster, if this work was not done because copyright permission could not be obtained¹³. One suspects that much of the preservation work of sound and moving image and photo archives is done in infringement of copyright. The law should be changed to reflect preservation policy and good practice.

Wider coverage under the directive

Fortunately, the EU's Information Society directive is much wider in its ambit than the 1988 Act, permitting under Article 5(2)(c) "specific acts of reproduction by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage". This is in line with repeated requests from the libraries, museums, archives and educational sectors which have argued for many years that their roles have changed and merged and that each should be treated the same. The use of the term educational establishments is interesting as their libraries and archives were covered before, but the directive potentially seems to encompass specific acts of reproduction across the whole institution and beyond the confines of the library, excluding only those activities which are of a commercial nature eg vacation lettings and conference facilities. Although galleries are not mentioned specifically in the text of Article 5(2)(c) the EU Commission has indicated that galleries can be included, in appropriate cases, as museums of art.

Under Article 5(2)(c) only archives need not be "publicly accessible", but public accessibility was not a requirement either of the previous English law, which encompassed archives in private hands, so long as they were not conducted for profit¹⁴. Charging for copies, which is permitted under the 1989 Regulations to include a contribution to the general expenses of the library, should not turn a library, archive etc into an organisation conducted for profit.

It should be noted that Article 5(2)(c) refers to "specific acts of reproduction". Arguably what is contemplated by this is a list of acts such as those in sections 38 - 44 of the 1988 Act eg copying articles in periodicals (s.38) and making replacement copies of works (s.42). Further the wording is "specific acts of reproduction" and not the wider "acts of reproduction", or "all acts of reproduction", thus narrowing significantly the ambit of the provision. It is likely therefore that the regulations which implement the directive will stick broadly to the types of acts set out already in the 1988 Act eg copying by a librarian to supply other prescribed libraries (s.41).

Another important feature of Article 5(2)(c) is that the range of materials is not limited in any way, and thus, the new exception may permit the reproduction of all categories of copyright works and not just of literary, dramatic or musical works, accompanying illustrations and typographic arrangements as under the 1988 Act. It is possible therefore that for the first time, art works in museums may be covered by the copying privilege. Again it depends on interpretation. As stated above, Article 5(2)(c) does contain the wording "specific acts of reproduction" and this might impliedly limit its application to the reproduction of only certain categories of works, but there again, it is arguable that the word "specific" relates to "acts", and this should not be read as "acts in relation to limited categories of works". Wider coverage of the whole range of copyright works may therefore be the intended result, although the ultimate test may well be whether this conflicts with the three step test in Art 5(5) viz the exception or limitation shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder. Extending the 1988 Act to works not previously within its purview and thus removing the right of owners of copyright in artistic works and their agents¹⁵ to object to copying or to charge therefor, might be deemed to conflict with the normal exploitation of an artistic work. This would be for the determination of a court.

Most public museums and galleries are legally bound under their governing instruments to promote the public enjoyment and understanding of art, craft, design, local history, science etc¹⁶. That surely cannot be fulfilled in the modern world without reproduction of images of works in their collections and a great deal of public money (e.g. from the New Opportunities Fund¹⁷) is being spent on digitising artefacts from our cultural heritage to provide the desired content for the proliferating electronic networks. It would not be in the public interest if this work is curtailed, skewed, or cut back, because of the need to obtain permission and to pay fees for the digitisation of works that are still in copyright. However the directive does not go that far. Art 5(3)(n), provides an optional exception¹⁸ to the reproduction right of Article 2 and the right of communication to the public of Article 3. Article 5(3)(n) permits "use by communication or making available, for the purposes of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c)¹⁹ of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections." (emphasis added). This is quite narrow and does of itself not permit placing digitised images of copyright works on the World Wide Web, as confirmed by Recital 40 which states: "Such an exception or limitation should not cover uses made in the context of on-line delivery of protected works or other subject-matter." However Article 5(3)(n) does not say that the terminals must be in only one establishment, thus permitting intranet services to be developed across libraries, educational establishments, museums and archives.

Recital 40 goes on to say that "specific contracts or licences should be promoted which, without creating imbalances, favour such establishments and the disseminative purposes they serve", and presumably those disseminative purposes include dissemination via the Web, thereby indicating a public policy favouring digitisation and the dissemination of digitised images, but only where agreement is reached with right holders, and thus again the question of copyright fees arises.

A welcome provision in the directive for institutions which host exhibitions, is Art 5(3)(j), which permits use for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of artistic works, to the extent necessary to promote the event, but excluding other commercial use. This is wider than section 63 of the 1988 Act which provides that it not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work to copy it, or to issue copies to the public, but only for the purpose of advertising the sale of the work. Most libraries, galleries etc host exhibitions in order to entice the public through their doors. It seems only logical that they may use copies of the items in the exhibition in order to advertise the event. In most cases of course copyright owners will not object to this use, but including it within the remit of an exception does have the advantage that time does not have to be spent by the hosting institution in administering this aspect of copyright law.

Commercial v non-commercial research

[Authors' note: This section of the article has changed since the 2003 regulations came into force. Section 29 now allows copying for the purposes of non-commercial research, but not for the purposes of commercial research. Commercial researchers must now obtain permission to copy from the copyright owner or pay a licence fee eg under the new licence entered into by libraries with the publishers.]

One feature of the directive which will inevitably cause problems for all institutions, be they libraries, archives, museums or galleries, is the distinction drawn between research for commercial and for non-commercial purposes. This is not to be found in the 1988 Act [before amendment]. Section 29(1) of the 1988 Act states that "Fair dealing with a literary work, other than a database, or a dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of research or private study does not infringe copyright in the work, or, in the case of a published edition, in the typographic arrangement." The wording "research or private study" clearly expresses the hitherto established [pre 2003] principle of UK law that while study must be private, research is not so limited and may be for commercial or for non-commercial purposes. Attempts were made to change this in the precursor to the 1988 Act, the 1987 Copyright Bill, but such was the opposition to the change, that the amendment was dropped. Opposition came not just from groups representing commercial and professional interests, but also from the library, archive etc sector, for this provision would have required them to apply different rules to commercial and to non-commercial users, and it not always easy to differentiate the two. They would also run the risk of secondary infringement of copyright²⁰ if users were using library facilities to breach copyright laws; and it would increase considerably the administrative burden on those who run libraries or who copy on behalf of commercial research workers. There was also the potential for confrontation at the Customer Service Point. The battle was won in 1988, but now the directive [and 2003 regulations] is introducing just such a distinction and making life potentially very difficult for the sector and all who work in it.

Where next?

Unfortunately, the battle is not over. The EU directive on copyright in the information society has yet to be implemented into English law. That will be done through secondary legislation, in the form of Regulations amending the 1988 Act. The Regulations are not available at the time of writing, but the prediction is that the UK government will do the minimum to comply with the directive and not all of the changes enumerated above will be made. EU Member States have the option of adopting the exceptions in Article 5. Some may adopt them in full, others may adopt none, but most will compromise.

Rights owners have and will continue to object to each and every curtailment of their controls over copying and to each and every reduction in their economic rights. The focus of attention is now fixed most clearly on the implementation or otherwise of Article 5. The EU directive had a rough passage through the European legislative process. The UK Regulations will have an equally rough ride through the UK Parliamentary process. However, the battle lines have moved forward. It will be easier to press for implementation into domestic law of rights and improvements which have been embodied in a directive, than for rights and improvements that have never been conceded. Further, in so far as the changes we have highlighted in the practical working environment of the heritage and cultural organisations have been made as a result of shifts in government policy, the government should take its policy initiative to its logical conclusion of amending the law to reflect the realities of cross-sectoral working and the multi-media environment. Even if the changes are not made now, they should not be too long delayed. It would be much more efficient if that initiative were seized now. It is to be hoped that by highlighting the possibilities of improvement that are enshrined in the directive, that the sector will be better informed to contribute to the debate to come.

¹ Allison Coleman is a former Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth; and Dr Susan Davies is a senior member of the Archives & Records Management training school at the same. She also serves on the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts and is Vice-President of the National Museum & Galleries of Wales.

² Forward to the Manifesto for Resource: the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, 2000 (available at www.resource.gov.uk)

³ Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

⁴ There is no such network of record offices in Northern Ireland where PRONI (the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland) carries the principal responsibility for archives and records.

⁵ Section 49 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

⁶ Where library users makes their own copies of copyright works held by a library, then the above provisions do not apply, for these provisions relate only to copying by, or on behalf of librarians (and in some cases to copying by archivists - see further below). Where the user/searcher uses a self-service photocopier, the provisions relating to fair dealing apply (sections 29 and 30 CDPA 1988). In many instances it would, in principle, be advisable for a library or archive to install a photocopier for use by the users themselves rather than have staff do the copying for them, for not only does this reduce staffing costs, it also shifts the burden of compliance somewhat.

⁷ A section which hardly ever seems to be used

⁸ Tim Padfield: unpublished paper on the impact of the directive on the use of archives in the UK (2001).

⁹ There are of course notable exceptions, such as the Churchill archive.

¹⁰ Copying of articles in periodicals (section 38) and parts of published works (section 39).

¹¹ With a restriction on the production of multiple copies - see s. 40 CDPA.

¹² Sections 37 - 44 CDPA

¹³ Often permission to copy cannot be obtained because the copyright owner cannot be found.

¹⁴ 1989 Regulations, paragraph 3(4).

¹⁵ Eg DASC (Design and Artists Copyright Society Ltd)

¹⁶ See further Peter Weinand, Anna Booy and Robin Fry: A Guide to Copyright for Museums and Galleries, Published by Routledge (2000), p42.

¹⁷ http://www.nof.org.uk/

¹⁸ In many cases Member States may choose whether to adopt an exception. They may not however add to the list of exceptions in Article 5.

¹⁹ Article 5(2)(c) refers to publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums or archives which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage. An example of the use of dedicated terminals on the premises is the British Museum's on site provision for access to its Collections Multimedia Public Access System (COMPASS). This is also accessible to remote users through the Museum's website (http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/).

²⁰ Secondary infringement of copyright is both a civil and a criminal matter. The provisions are to be found in sections 22-26 of the 1988 Act.