Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Can I be sued for “stealing” something that’s in the public domain?

111 replies

RalIy · 24/01/2023 20:28

Hi,

I found some interesting data. I took a screenshot and included it in a blog. I credited the source where I found it.

The person who apparently originally came up from the data has emailed me threatening to sue me for using it without their permission or alternatively said I can pay them £1,000.

This has freaked me out slightly. Did I break the law here? I figured if it was in the public domain and I credited it, then that was all that was needed??

OP posts:
WolfFoxHare · 24/01/2023 20:30

What do you mean by ‘it’s in the public domain’? Is it published under a CCBY license? If not, no, chances are you can’t just credit the original website and use it on your blog. I’d take it down and hope for the best.

WolfFoxHare · 24/01/2023 20:32

Where did you ‘find’ the data originally?

Viviennemary · 24/01/2023 20:34

It depends. You haven't given enough information. I agree take it down and hope for the best.

Paq · 24/01/2023 20:37

Just take it down. Very unlikely they will sue.

If you are a professional blogger you need to gen up on copyright and permissions to use other people's data/research. It's not usually enough to just credit them. You need permission.

Original poster
RalIy · 24/01/2023 20:37

Yeah I’ve taken it down. But they are still threatening me.

I found it in a report. I think the origin was when said person tweeted it out and I have since discovered it was included in a few other reports as well as a news article.

OP posts:
PinkArt · 24/01/2023 20:38

If you took a screengrab you didn't just take the data, you took the website design too.
No you can't just take things without asking because it's 'in the public domain'! That's a phrase which has a legal meaning that isn't just I found it on the internet.

Original poster
RalIy · 24/01/2023 20:38

@Viviennemary Sorry for being vague. I don’t want to be too identifiable.

OP posts:
Mumsnut · 24/01/2023 20:40

I would post this in the legal section. Hope you can get it sorted

Original poster
RalIy · 24/01/2023 20:44

@Mumsnut Thanks. I think I will. It was totally unintentional if it was illegal. I thought if I credited it then it would be fine. What a learning curve.

Now I’ve looked at it in more detail it’s actually pretty easy for me to recreate using government/ONS sources. I wish I’d done that. Ugh.

OP posts:
SnackSizeRaisin · 24/01/2023 20:55

You can't use someone's picture without permission so if you put the screenshot of the graph someone else made in your blog then they are entitled to ask for money. However if you took the information from someone's work and referred to them in your own words with a citation then that should be ok, or if you created your own graph that wasn't too similar... I would try apologising and saying you didn't know. If you haven't made any money from using the image then hopefully they will let it go.

GrumpyPanda · 24/01/2023 20:57

This sounds batshit. One screenshot, so essentially one graph? Which you credited? Sounds like fair use to me. That said in academia it's more common to recreate and attribute a table in your own font, but that still shouldn't make a difference.

ZenNudist · 24/01/2023 20:58

What's their loss here? How much money did you make using their data? Let them sue you I doubt its worth the cost.

SirGawain · 24/01/2023 21:01

In theory they might take you to court to claim damages, (in this case loss of earnings), but unless the image was very valuable, perhaps because they are famous, it's unlikely that a court would award as much as a thousand pounds.

Inkpotlover · 24/01/2023 21:02

I think you're fine under fair usage as part of the Copyright Act, but I would check with a legal expert to be certain.

www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

Ponderingwindow · 24/01/2023 21:07

Let’s say I go to a government website and download some data that is freely available to the public. I make a pretty chart. The chart belongs to me. You can’t just copy and paste it into your article. Nothing is stopping you from going to the website, downloading the data and making your own chart.

if you don’t want to do the work, you can still reference the results and summaries someone else created and talk about them. So I could write an article talking about “government data shows xyz” and then you could write an article saying ponderingwindow says government data shows xyz. Then hopefully you would build on that by adding additional info or follow-up with your own thoughts and comments on that.

Original poster
RalIy · 24/01/2023 21:13

@Ponderingwindow Okay that is fair. I did actually format it in a slightly different way. But I’ve taken it down and they are still not happy. Was mainly wondering if there is anything they can do genuinely do.

OP posts:
GlassBunion · 24/01/2023 21:24

I'm no legal eagle at all but saying they'll sue you unless you give them money sounds very dodgy.

EarringsandLipstick · 24/01/2023 21:27

Of course you shouldn't have used it.

I deal with this all the time as part of my work (academic advisory and teaching role).

There's a common misconception that information that's freely available eg on the internet requires no permission or attribution for use.

This is incorrect. You should seek permission prior to reproduction.

However, if you are using it in a non-commercial context, as a blog implies, there's no real claim for them, and you taking it down & acknowledging you shouldn't have used it, should be sufficient. I wouldn't worry further; I can't see anything more happening.

EarringsandLipstick · 24/01/2023 21:30

Inkpotlover · 24/01/2023 21:02

I think you're fine under fair usage as part of the Copyright Act, but I would check with a legal expert to be certain.

www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

Just for info: fair usage only applies in limited, defined situations (which are set out in the link you provide).

It spoiled only to educational use, review or commentary, and reporting (with further limits). It may be possible that her blog meets the second, but unlikely.

Again, there appears to be no commercial gain for OP though so I can't see this going further.

MissMaple82 · 24/01/2023 21:59

Sounds like a chancer to me! I'd just apologise and leave it at that

Luredbyapomegranate · 24/01/2023 22:29

I don't think you need to worry.

I am not an expert but I do do a lot of fair dealing as part of my (media) job - for compensation context, if we can't find the author of a photo we would put aside £250 as an await claim, plus a note of the reasonable (ie fairly basic) endeavours we'd made to try and find the author. This is considered adequate compensation for a photo used in a TV show that might be seen by millions of people, so the idea this person could ask you to pay £1000 for a blog presumably read by a few thousand is disproportionate.

Facts (which would include data) are not protected by copyright, although the graphs/publications that the data is published in would be covered. So if you just quoted some data they generated, that's fine, although it would be conventional and courteous to attribute it to them. If you actually showed a screen shot of their graph or copied it, yes generally that would be an infringement of copyright - but there are exceptions which does include non-commercial research (www.gov.uk/using-somebody-elses-intellectual-property/copyright).

Even if you don't think you qualify for any kind of exemption, then removing it and apologising is more than adequate. Just reiterate that and don't take any notice of any further comms from them.

determinedtomakethiswork · 24/01/2023 22:41

I agree with the others, just take it down, apologise and say you didn't realise, and then stop all communication. It sounds more like they are blackmailing you so just don't respond.

bridgetreilly · 24/01/2023 22:47

(1) It wasn’t your data.
(2) It wasn’t your image
(3) It wasn’t in the public domain
(4) It doesn’t matter what you intended, you stole it and the owner can quite legally sue you
(5) You may have found it used elsewhere either by people who paid appropriately for the license or who are also being sued.

You need to google ‘public domain’ because it sounds like you don’t know what that means.

bridgetreilly · 24/01/2023 22:50

All these people saying it’s very unlikely they will sue? Weird. People get sued for this all the time.

sadieshavingashindig · 24/01/2023 22:52

Just because something is available on the internet doesn't mean it's public domain. Just apologise and take it down, otherwise you can/will be sued.

Luredbyapomegranate
I am not an expert but I do do a lot of fair dealing as part of my (media) job - for compensation context, if we can't find the author of a photo we would put aside £250 as an await claim, plus a note of the reasonable (ie fairly basic) endeavours we'd made to try and find the author.

Well no, clearly you are not an expert. This is actually incredibly bad practice and really frustrating (infuriating actually) for a lot of copyright holders. Sadly it's too common amongst some media workers who think anything's fair game. Either do more than "fairly basic" research or just not don't use it, it's not yours to reproduce. Also an author doesn't own copyright of a photograph, the photographer does, and it lasts for 70 years after death (70 years from the date of the photograph if the photographer is unknown).