Worked example · Art · Year 11
DCF: Citizenship → Digital rights, licensing and ownership
A secure Year 11 response with the correct answers to Parts A and B, so you can mark the class without knowing copyright law. Show it after pupils have finished Part B, or you will collect thirty copies of it. Where a pupil's verdict differs, the test is whether they named a rule from the facts sheet; if they only gave an opinion, it is not yet secure.
| Work | Expiry date and working | In copyright today? |
|---|---|---|
| Gwen John painting, 1920; artist died 1939 | Artistic work: 70 years after the author's death. End of 1939 + 70 = 31 December 2009. | No — in the public domain since 1 January 2010. |
| Kyffin Williams painting, 1975; artist died 2006 | End of 2006 + 70 = 31 December 2076. | Yes — another 50 years to run. |
| Thomas Jones landscape, 1782; artist died 1803 | End of 1803 + 70 = 31 December 1873. | No — out of copyright for over 150 years. |
| Choir sound recording, first published 2019 | Sound recordings run 70 years from first publication, not from a death. End of 2019 + 70 = 31 December 2089. | Yes. |
| Catalogue page layout, published 2015 | Layout of a published edition: 25 years from first publication. End of 2015 + 25 = 31 December 2040. | Yes — but only the typesetting is protected, not the words or pictures on the page. |
Evidences criterion 1: the date is exact, the working shows the end-of-calendar-year rule, and the recording and the layout are treated by their own rules rather than being given the artist's 70-years-after-death term.
1. Nia's scanned Gwen John portrait in her sketchbook — ALLOWED.
Rule: the painting left copyright on 31 December 2009, so the image itself is in the public domain. The book it came out of is a separate matter: the page layout is protected for 25 years and the publisher's photograph of the painting may be claimed separately. For annotated coursework the illustration for instruction exception covers it anyway.
Action: write the source under the scan (book title, publisher, year). This is classwork only — she must not print and sell the scan, and the school must not put the scanned page on its public website.
Criterion 2: names the expiry date and the education exception, and separates the painting from the photograph of the painting.
2. Owain's painting from a CC BY-SA photograph, sold for £25 — ALLOWED WITH CONDITIONS.
Rule: CC BY-SA permits adaptations and permits commercial use, so painting his own version from the photograph and selling the canvas are both fine. Two conditions bite. He must credit the photographer, and because ShareAlike applies to adaptations he must release his painting under CC BY-SA 4.0 or a compatible licence — which means whoever buys it may photograph and remix it on the same terms.
Action: print the attribution line on the label, add "This painting is released under CC BY-SA 4.0", and tell the buyer before they pay.
Criterion 3: ShareAlike is described as a duty that travels onto the pupil's own new work, not as a credit rule.
3. Megan's CC BY-NC image in a £300 paid café mural — NOT ALLOWED.
Rule: NonCommercial bars any use primarily intended for commercial advantage or money. A café paying the school £300 for a mural on its wall is exactly that, and it stays commercial even though the money goes to the school rather than to Megan.
Action: either swap to an image under CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0, or email the photographer and ask in writing for a commercial licence. Keep the reply — permission you cannot show is permission you do not have.
Criterion 3 again, and it closes the most common pupil escape route: "it is for charity, so it is not commercial".
4. Jac's cropped CC BY-ND photograph — NOT ALLOWED.
Rule: cropping is an adaptation. NoDerivatives lets you copy and share the work commercially, in any medium, but only in unadapted form. Crediting the photographer does not cure it, because the problem is the change, not the missing credit.
Action: place the photograph uncropped and rebuild the poster grid around its real shape, or ask the photographer for permission to crop. Nothing stops him cropping it in his own sketchbook for study — the restriction is on what he shares.
Criterion 5: shows that the controlled act is making and sharing the adaptation, so attribution cannot buy a way round ND.
5. Ffion's recoloured CC0 pattern on T-shirts, no credit — ALLOWED.
Rule: CC0 is a public domain dedication, not a licence with conditions. The creator has given up their rights as far as the law allows, so commercial use, adaptation and selling are all permitted and attribution is not required.
Action: none legally required. She should still screenshot the CC0 page she downloaded it from, and she should credit the designer anyway — it costs nothing and it is what she would want done with her own work.
Criterion 3: correctly separates CC0 from the six licences instead of treating it as "CC BY without the credit".
6. Photograph of a Kyffin Williams painting on the school's public website — NOT ALLOWED without permission.
Rule: the painting is in copyright until 31 December 2076. Photographing it is copying, and putting the photograph on a public website is "putting it on the internet" — two of the acts copyright controls. Illustration for instruction would cover showing it in a lesson; it does not cover publishing it to the world to advertise an event. The gallery will also have its own photography rules.
Action: write to the rights holder (the artist's estate, through the gallery) and ask. If there is no reply in time, advertise the exhibition using pupils' own work, which the school can license itself.
Criterion 2 and 5: distinguishes classroom use from publication, and gives a workable plan B rather than stopping at "you cannot".
C1 — label for Owain's painting:
C2 — credit on the exhibition programme:
Criterion 4: both lines carry title, author, source and licence, and both state the change. C1 also carries the ShareAlike promise forward, which is the part that is usually missed.
Changing somebody's artwork does not make it yours, because making an adaptation is one of the things copyright controls in the first place. When I trace, crop, recolour or collage a protected image I am doing a restricted act, so I need permission or a licence before I do it, not afterwards. There is no "change it by a fifth and it is fine" rule; that is a playground myth, and the number changes every time someone repeats it. What does help me at school is the illustration for instruction exception, which lets me reuse a work to make or explain a point in my coursework and assessment — but it only covers teaching and study, so the moment I sell the piece or the school puts it online, I am back to needing permission.
Criterion 5: uses the word adaptation correctly, kills the percentage myth, and names a real exception with its real limit.