Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherCat
Fortunately in NZ and Australia legislation regarding such things is not interpreted as literally and as being as black and white as some here would like us to believe. What constitutes a "public performance" will actually be interpreted according to the circumstances.
|
This is also the situation in the UK, as I gave a reference to in post #247 on the previous page.
Quote:
|
Frankly, I think those prattling on that rights apply in what are pretty informal and unpaid performances in "public" places are either dreaming or see the world in purely black and white terms...
|
Let me give you a real-world example of such a situation. A few years a local school was prosecuted for staging a performance of "Joseph and His Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" without the permission of the rights holder. No fee was being charged, but still the school was found guilty of copyright infringement. I see no fundamental difference between that and a public reading of a book in a library.
There is very little question that "rights apply"; the law makes it clear that public performance is an activity which is the exclusive right of the copyright holder. The question (as you rightly point out) is what constitutes a public performance, and a court will make a decision on this based on the specific circumstances of the case in question. In the case of the school I mentioned above, the court decided that even though this was a school play to which no admission was charged and only pupils, teachers and parents were in attendance, it was nonetheless a public performance. Can you honestly say that it's "dreaming" to say that a public reading in a library might well be viewed in the same way?