# Legal advice on copyright please?



## cptrayes (16 June 2012)

I have an email reply from the Farrier's Registration Council in response to a complaint I made that a 3 month ban was woefully inadequate for a farrier who twice in a couple of weeks went into a field without authority and deliberately cut so much foot off two horses as to make it impossible to reshoe them for the maximum amount of time, thereby also (of course!) laming them. 

The writer has told me that I cannot copy it to this forum and someone else has suggested that I now "own" it because it was sent to me personally, so I can.

Does anyone know for certain the legal ownership of the copyright of the email?

Can I publish it?


----------



## Mithras (16 June 2012)

Have they registered the copyright of the email in question?


----------



## Nugget La Poneh (16 June 2012)

I can't see how it would be a copyright issue?

However, considering there is possibly a chance it is part of a legal or code of conduct case that the press are not aware of, that might be the reason why they have said it can't be published. That said, if that was the situation, you could argue that they shouldn't be disclosing information that if re-produced, could harm a case?!

Try http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ for copyright information


----------



## YorksG (16 June 2012)

Does the e-mail/letter have the copywrite symbol on it? Somewhere in the deep recess of my brain I seem to remember that if a piece of IP has this it is protected, if not then it isn't. I may not remember this correctly though


----------



## Jake10 (17 June 2012)

cptrayes said:



			The writer has told me that I cannot copy it to this forum and someone else has suggested that I now "own" it because it was sent to me personally, so I can.
		
Click to expand...

Did they only specify this forum as the place you couldn't post it or that you couldn't forward it to others?


----------



## Dry Rot (17 June 2012)

Interesting question! I would say this is a public interest matter so the normal rules of copyright don't apply. On the other hand, I was a witness in a case and wanted to understand the whole story (in fact, why the defendant had been let off!). The court told me I couldn't see the report, only the verdict. So the short answer is, I don't know. I'd write and ask them and say unless there is a good reason, you'll publish because you consider it to be of public concern and see what they say.


----------



## Kaylum (17 June 2012)

Whoever has sent the email owns the email. 

Company emails are assets belonging to the company. So I would say don't post it.  It's not worth the legal ins and outs.


----------



## cptrayes (17 June 2012)

I told them that I wished to make their reply public and they expressly forbade me from doing so.

I've done a bit of research and copyright exists without registration and is held by the person who wrote it unless they say that you can have it.

So I can't print it here.

The letter does not give any personal information about Mr Wellfair that is not already in the public domain, it simply explains their reasoning behind the incredibly lenient penalty that they gave him for deliberately maiming two horses in two separate and cold blooded incidents to get his own back on their owner.

Now what does that say about how the Farrier's Registration Council are or are not protecting the interests of horse owners, I wonder?


----------



## Kaylum (17 June 2012)

cptrayes said:



			I told them that I wished to make their reply public and they expressly forbade me from doing so.

I've done a bit of research and copyright exists without registration and is held by the person who wrote it unless they say that you can have it.
		
Click to expand...

I was pretty sure that was the case and if it's from a company email the company owns it which is why when people leave a company they are not allowed to take any emails they have written or replied to as these are assets.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (17 June 2012)

Now what does that say about how the Farrier's Registration Council are or are not protecting the interests of horse owners, I wonder?
		
Click to expand...

When I was wondering about reporting the farrier who made such a mess of my mare's hooves, I was told not to bother by my new farrier (even though both he and my Vet were willing to support me). He said that the whole complaint process is rotten and the best that I could expect (and it was doubtful that I would get even that) was a slap on the wrist.

He knew of a case where a Farrier hit a horse on the head with a rasp because it moved (not even being naughty) which was witnessed and the Farrier was cleared of all wrongdoing by the FRC.


----------



## Dry Rot (17 June 2012)

From http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...ts/defences-to-infringement-of-copyright.html

_Public interest 

Public interest does not appear in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, the courts have said that, just as they will not stop publication of confidential information which is in the public interest, they would not prohibit the infringement of another&#8217;s copyright where the public interest in publication outweighed the private right of property. The defence is based on the idea that the public&#8217;s need to know should sometimes override the copyright owner&#8217;s right to restrict or prevent publication (and takes into account the right to freedom of expression explained above)._

The worst that can happen is that they ask you to take the post down. They could sue for the commercial value of the breach of copyright, but are they really going to do that and is it worth anything?

I published the decision of a Kennel Club committee (in a book running to 5,000+ copies) that was marked Private and Confidential and leaked to me. Nothing has happened yet and it never will!

These professional bodies have one purpose and that is to protect the interests of their membership.


----------



## Oberon (17 June 2012)

Is paraphrasing said email allowed? That way it is your own words.


----------



## cptrayes (17 June 2012)

The paraphrase is:

1. Mr Wellfair admitted "serious professional misconduct" and  expressed considerable remorse._ [I wonder how surprising that was once he realised his entire livelihood was at stake]_

2. They are convinced the Mr Wellfair will never do the same to another horse again.

3. Mr Wellfair was given character references by other clients and vets_ [I hope they are happy with the outcome!]_

4. They told him that they would have banned him for life but for his "humiliation and remorse"._ [Lifetime ban reduced to 3 months? What a joke!]_

5. Three months is, in the scale of punishments ever given by the Farriers Registration Council a LONG ban_ [heaven help us! What offence merits a longer one in their eyes - this was "serious professional misconduct" after all?]_

6. Not only is this a long ban but it is a rare occurrence that any Farrier is given such a ban_ [because there's no point reporting farriers who behave badly when they are given such pitiful slaps on the wrist?]_

Not one person on HHO has posted that they think the punishment is about right. The FRC are completely out of touch with what the customers of farriers want to see happen, interested only, it seems to me, in acting as a Trade Union to protect the interests of their members. Shame on them.


----------



## Dry Rot (17 June 2012)

cptrayes said:



			The paraphrase is:

1. Mr Wellfair admitted "serious professional misconduct" and  expressed considerable remorse._ [I wonder how surprising that was once he realised his entire livelihood was at stake]_

2. They are convinced the Mr Wellfair will never do the same to another horse again.

3. Mr Wellfair was given character references by other clients and vets_ [I hope they are happy with the outcome!]_

4. They told him that they would have banned him for life but for his "humiliation and remorse"._ [Lifetime ban reduced to 3 months? What a joke!]_

5. Three months is, in the scale of punishments ever given by the Farriers Registration Council a LONG ban_ [heaven help us! What offence merits a longer one in their eyes - this was "serious professional misconduct" after all?]_

6. Not only is this a long ban but it is a rare occurrence that any Farrier is given such a ban_ [because there's no point reporting farriers who behave badly when they are given such pitiful slaps on the wrist?]_

Not one person on HHO has posted that they think the punishment is about right. The FRC are completely out of touch with what the customers of farriers want to see happen, interested only, it seems to me, in acting as a Trade Union to protect the interests of their members. Shame on them.
		
Click to expand...

Why they would object to that being published is beyond me! I did notice that a farrier who let his unqualified son attend to a horse under his immediate supervision got a month's suspension. So the above case is apparently only three times worse. I can't help thinking there is more to this case than meets the eye and I wonder if we will ever know the complete truth of it? Why so secretive?


----------



## Meowy Catkin (17 June 2012)

I did notice that a farrier who let his unqualified son attend to a horse under his immediate supervision got a month's suspension. So the above case is apparently only three times worse.
		
Click to expand...

Madness.


----------



## cptrayes (17 June 2012)

Dry Rot said:



			Why they would object to that being published is beyond me! I did notice that a farrier who let his unqualified son attend to a horse under his immediate supervision got a month's suspension. So the above case is apparently only three times worse. I can't help thinking there is more to this case than meets the eye and I wonder if we will ever know the complete truth of it? Why so secretive?
		
Click to expand...

The rest of the letter is a very detailed account of who made up the panel that judged him, that they used a barrister from Penningtons for the case against him, that he was represented by a solicitor etc etc.

I don't think there is any more to the case than has been stated. The man was prosecuted and it has been reported locally and now in H&H with the same details. It has also been talked about on another thread and someone who knows the horses confirmed that there was no provocation be the owner (and none was presented in his defence, she simply told him not to shoe her horses again). No provocation whatsoever was mentioned in the judgement.

What a lengthy quote in the letter from the actual written judgement does say, though, is that if it were not for his "remorse and humiliation" the judgement would have been a LIFE ban.  No other punishment is mentioned, they just dropped like shot pheasant from life ban to 3 months. 

The Public Prosecution was equally shameful, as it happens. He was charged with criminal damage instead of under the Animal Welfare Act and got away without even a fine. That will have helped with the pitiful ban the FRC gave him too.


----------



## Dry Rot (17 June 2012)

It sounds to be a thoroughly disgraceful affair all round. My initial feelings were that the courts have all the facts and public outrage is not always justified, but it seems it is in this case. 

However, it seems doubtful that he will get much work in the future so the effect may be the equivalent of a life time ban anyway.

As for the secrecy element, that just seems like a load of nonsense to me and not to the FRD's credit at all. The story is not only of public interest but is now in the public domain.


----------



## Oberon (18 June 2012)

He had remorse?

Oh - that's OK then.

The men who batter their partners and children are filled with remorse in the morning when they are sober.

They go back home and it's all good.

.....until they get drunk again....and then (next time) a knife comes out .


----------



## lawyerbunny (20 June 2012)

Hello all

Just seen this, thought I'd chip in re. the copyright point.  Yes, generally speaking copyright will attach to original written communications, but I'd have expected them to raise general confidentiality principles as preventing onward transmission, rather than copyright.  Breach of confidentiality is still subject to a public interest defence.  Here, if you were to raise that defence, the FRC might well say that the public interest had been satisfied already by reports of their decision (and aproximate reasoning) having already been made public, hence the defence wouldn't work.  On the other hand, you could argue that no true confidentiality applied to their e-mail to you, since they would presumably supply the same information on request to anyone who asked for it.

Ultimately, my advice would usually be to steer clear of a fight, however justified!  Paraphrasing the substance of their response might not get around general breach of confidence, but since I suspect that's a bit thin anyway in this case (from the FRC's point of view), I'd say not to worry.  

Am disappointed they are choosing not to make their reasoning more widely known on this (appalling) case.  Transparency is a Good Thing in any disciplinary proceedings, IMO.  That said, we solicitors have most - but not all - decisions of our regulator published, but not where publication would cause harm or affect future regulation.  I expect those considerations are also firmly in the FRC's mind.


----------



## HashRouge (20 June 2012)

I can only hope that the remainder of his clients soon become ex-clients. Who on earth would stay with a farrier like that?


----------



## Clippy (22 June 2012)

The FRC are a disgrace. Their punishment makes a mockery of animal welfare.

As for the farrier, well it's up to horse owners everywhere to spread the word. The 3 months ban is nothing compared to what the equestrian community can do to put him out of business so if you feel strongly, get these threads on every forum and keep them going past August when he can legally shoe again


----------



## FairyLights (3 July 2012)

This 3 month ban is a disgrace. The man should have been banned for life. Maybe we should all write to our MP's about it. Or set up a Facebook Page about it.


----------



## EmmasMummy (3 July 2012)

Are they an organisation that you could use the freedom of information act to get the same info from? as if so, if you wrote stating that you wanted the info under that, then you can post the reply they give you I think?


----------

