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

[RalIy]

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??

I think the crux of the matter is whether you are making money off someone else’s work

or whether by using the data you are depriving the original writer of royalties/money etc

I would be very careful about dealing with someone who demands money with threats.

Definitely not to be dealt with.

The term you use " in the public domain" does not mean what you think it means.

It does not mean something you find "in public" because the point of publishing a work is to make it publicly available, on conditions, eg, sale or licensing, to the public.

"In the public domain" is a legal term that means that a work is not subject to copyright protection.

A work only becomes in the public domain when the term of copyright expires, or if it is published in ways that waive copyright, eg, under a creative commons license. For all other published work, you have to pay to use it, or license it, or seek permission of the copyright owner who may waive any fee and allow you to use it with a credit or citation.

So please don't say something is "in the public domain" when you simply mean it is publicly available because it has been published.

Just an extra note to save all correspondence and proof of your actions (that you have taken down the content following the request). Also contact search engines (Google, Bing) to refresh or de-list the page in question as they retain a cached version unless you have prevented that from happening. (Save proof of this action, too.) If this issue results in any legal action, I would assume your prompt action will be in your favour.

The monetary valuable isn’t determined by the size of the OP’s website but what the owner reasonably charges for their work in selling it legitimately.

@NK3360719X1133ebb3f2b @DogInATent

Many thanks both for the responses!

Film school was in England. Obviously as a creative person I'm never keen to deliberately infringe another person's copyright!

IIRC the session I'm thinking of was regarding music licensing, that we could use what we liked for non-commercial 'showreels' etc but for a film that had any aspiration to screen at any festival then we had to obtain proper music clearances, and that these would be stepped-up in cost - from film festival only (low fee) to large commercial distribution (high fee), correlating to the likely scope for profit.

Really appreciate you both taking time to share your expertise :)

The claim is not about the data. The copyright holder has combined two data sources and formatted the data in a specific way. They hold the copyright in that representation of the data, but not in the underlying data. OP appears to have taken a screenshot of the representation of the data and used that in their blog. That is a breach of copyright. And to repeat what I have said up thread, this is not blackmail. It is not remotely blackmail. The copyright holder is correctly following the steps litigants are required to take before starting legal action.

It doesn't matter whether the original carried the copyright holder's name and/or a way of contacting them. Use of the image without permission is still a breach of copyright.

OP did acknowledge the source, but that doesn't provide a get out of jail free card for copyright infringement. Equally, the quantity of copyright material OP used is irrelevant. You are allowed to quote a small amount of a work for criticism, review or similar, but the "small amount" is relative to the size of the original work. In this case, the copyright holder is likely to be able to argue that there is standalone copyright in their representation of this data, so OP has reproduced 100% of a copyright work.

It will not cost thousands for the copyright holder to bring a claim. As they only want £1,000, they will be able to claim through the IPEC small claims track. It will cost them £70 to make the claim and a further £80 if a hearing is required. They will not need a lawyer and will be able to reclaim their court costs from the OP.

if they've not got a copyright registration notice point this out as well

In the UK, copyright is automatically invested in the creator of a work. It does not need to be registered anywhere, or asserted anywhere.

You should always assume that you DON’T have the right to use someone else’s work without permission, not the other way around.

This. Sharing the data itself, with. Link to source is no issue at all. The screengrab is the copyright violation.

They likely will still be liable for a licence payment for the time it was up on their blog. But a court is much more likely to suggest a payment in the low £100s.

You still have to pay for a licence under fair usage exemptions in most circumstances. Fair usage means you can use the image quickly because of need, without needing licence permission. If the copyright holder charges you for the usage, you still need to pay. IIRC we used to pay between £50 and £200 dependent on the image if we received a claim (well known newsboradcaster) but that was about 10 years ago.

Just to add, there is no requirement to put a copyright mark on works. You can put a copyright mark on if you want, but your work is copyright even if there is no copyright mark.