Dumpling in a Hanky

Early last December, as the year before, I put together a series of blog posts, recommending as Christmas gifts various library and library-themed items for sale that I'd found on Etsy or other sites. One post consisted of items purely for putting on the wall: decorative paintings and prints. In order to show readers the visual art I was recommending, I put an image of each item on the blog, along with a direct link to each shop below that image, allowing potential buyers to go directly to where each item could be purchased. People seemed to enjoy the post, and previous ones, and many commented that they were tempted to buy, or would buy, various items I'd selected. This week, I received simultaneously a notification of a comment on that blog post, and an email, with the same content, headed "copyright violation". Hello,  Considering you work for a law firm I am amazed by your lack of knowledge on copyright! The image of X in your post 'Deck the halls...

Yay! As emailed out over lis-law last week, the Copyright Licensing Agency have developed a CLA licence just for law firms . Body of the press release below: New licence for law firms 15th October 2008 CLA have announced the launch of a new licence designed specifically for UK law firms. From 1 November 2008, the new Law Licence will offer law firms additional benefits to the existing photocopying rights. The Law Licence now enables articles and clippings from law reports, journals and press cuttings (magazines, journals, legal and other periodicals, but not newspapers) to be scanned, stored electronically and distributed externally to clients. The new licence has been developed in consultation with The Law Society of England and Wales and the City of London Law Society so that it meets the needs of law firms that wish to copy from law reports and journals, business titles and other published media. Chris Holland, Librarian & Head of Information Services at the Law So...

I don't know, I don't think JK's really got a strong case here. After all, it's just a reference guide to her work - she didn't write it, someone else (a librarian, woo-hoo!) put in that hard work. I wonder, to take it to an extreme, if she wins this does it mean that travel writers won't be able to write about the countries they visit, because they didn't create them, just experienced them and loved them? Assuming they even visited them in the first place, of course . The case is being heard in America, and I'm not clear enough on UK copyright law (other than to know what I can and can't copy in a commercial library) to know if she'd be able to bring the same sort of case here. I have a feeling she couldn't but can't guarantee it. Either way, I think she's perhaps getting a bit uptight about work created by people who love what she writes, and want to help guide others.