Copyright FAQs

The Question-Answer pairs below should address some of the most common questions you may have.

General Copyright FAQs

When copyright arises in a work, it grants the author two main sets of rights:

Economic Rights - these allow the creator to control the use of their work and to earn money from it. This includes the right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display the work, as well as to create derivative works. Economic rights can be transferred or licensed to others.

Moral Rights - these protect the personal and reputational interests of the creator. They include the right of attribution, the right to object to derogatory treatment, the right to object to false attribution, and the right to privacy in certain films and photographs. Unlike economic rights, moral rights cannot be sold or transferred, although they can be waived.


Very often the value of creative works is much more than just their economic value; they may have a special significance for their creators, who invested a lot of their energy and emotional & intellectual effort into them. Therefore, copyright works require protection that goes beyond traditional property rights. Moral rights safeguard these non-economic interests. 

Moral rights are personal rights that can protect an artist or creator’s reputation, as well as the integrity of their work. 

There are four moral rights recognised in the UK:

  1. The Right to Be Identified as the Author (or the Right to Attribution) – this right ensures that the creator is acknowledged as the author of a work when it is used or published.
  2. The Right to Object to Derogatory Treatment (or the Integrity Right) – creators can object if their work is edited, distorted or mutilated in a way that is prejudicial to their honour or reputation. An infringement may occur when someone who has treated the work in a derogatory manner then publishes it commercially or communicates an image of it to the public. Whether the treatment of a work is derogatory is subjective, so the artist or creator may need to demonstrate the extent of their reputation. 
  3. The Right to Object to False Attribution – This right can be exercised by anyone who finds a work falsely attributed to them or if someone falsely claims to be the author of a work, the actual creator can object. The right is only violated or infringed when the falsely attributed artwork is exhibited in public or when copies or materials containing an image of it are issued to the public. 
  4. The Right of Privacy in Certain Photographs or Films - This right may be exercised by anyone who has commissioned photographs or films for private and domestic purposes, and the resulting photograph or film is a copyright protected work. 

Unlike copyright, moral rights cannot be transferred or ‘assigned’ to another party, but they can be exercised after death by beneficiaries and personal representatives. However, moral rights can be waived if the author voluntarily chooses to do so.

Moral rights last for the duration of copyright, except for the Right to Object to False Attribution – which lasts for the artist or creator’s lifetime plus 20 years.


'Fair dealing' is a legal doctrine under UK copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without needing permission from the copyright holder, under certain conditions. It is similar to 'fair use' in other jurisdictions like the United States.

Fair dealing typically applies in the following copyright exceptions:

Research and Private Study - Individuals can use copyrighted material for their own research or private study, provided it is non-commercial and does not affect the market value of the original work.

Quotation, Criticism & Review - It allows for the use of copyrighted material when criticizing, reviewing, or quoting, as long as the use is fair and accompanied by sufficient acknowledgment of the source.

News Reporting - Fair dealing permits the use of copyrighted works for reporting current events, provided the work is relevant to the event being reported and is properly attributed.

Parody, Caricature, and Pastiche - It allows the use of copyrighted works for creating parodies or caricatures, as long as the use is fair.

The concept of fairness is key, and whether a particular use qualifies as fair dealing depends on factors like the amount of the work used, the purpose of the use, and its impact on the market for the original work.


Under “fair dealing”, you may use portions of other people's works for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review or the reporting of current events. If your use of these materials goes beyond the scope of fair dealing, then you should seek permission from the copyright holder. Note that fair dealing does not extend to the use of materials in teaching. To include copies of texts in course packs you should contact the library’s E-Reserve service or the Resource List service.


Yes. Just like any other asset, the rights to a copyright work can be inherited.

Under UK law, copyright is considered a form of property and, like other types of property, it can be transferred or passed on to others, including through inheritance. When the creator of a work (such as a piece of writing, music, or artwork) dies, the copyright in that work typically forms part of their estate and can be left to heirs or beneficiaries as specified in their will. 

The inheritors of copyright have the same rights as the original copyright holder. They can license the work, sell the copyright, or enforce it against infringement. They can also choose to keep the work private if they wish.

If the copyright holder dies without a will, the copyright will be passed on according to the intestacy rules. These rules dictate how an estate is divided among surviving relatives.

If a deceased creator was a member of a copyright collective management organization (such as PRS for Music), the royalties collected by that society will continue to be paid to the heirs or estate.

In conclusion, copyright is indeed inheritable in the UK, and the heirs have the same rights and responsibilities regarding the copyrighted material as the original creator did. 

It is important to note that copyright lasts for a specific period, usually 70 years after the author's death. Therefore, even if the copyright is inherited, it will eventually expire.


Generally, no, the nationality of the author does not directly matter with regard to the copyright protection of their works. 

The UK is a signatory to the Berne Convention, which requires member countries to grant copyright protection to works created by authors from other member countries. Thus, if the author is from a Berne Convention country, their work is automatically eligible for protection in the UK, regardless of the author's nationality or domicile.

Nonetheless, it is essential to be aware of the specific laws and regulations in the country where the work is created or used to ensure adequate copyright protection.


Even though copyright is territorial, in the European Union there is limited harmonisation, so the scope of protection for copyright works in the UK and for UK works abroad remains largely unaffected by Brexit.

To the extent that UK law is derived from EU Directives and Regulations, it is preserved in UK law post-Brexit as 'assimilated law' and will remain so until the law is changed by future UK legislation or by judicial interpretation. Divergence over time between copyright law in the UK and EU is a possibility given the greater freedom UK judges now have under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to depart from assimilated law in their decision making.


The UK offers two types of protection for databases: copyright and database right. There is no need for registration; protection is granted automatically upon creation. Each form of protection has different criteria and covers different aspects of databases.

Copyright 

  • Protects the structure, selection, and arrangement of the database content if it is original and creative.
  • Lasts for 70 years after the death of the author or, for corporate authorship, 70 years from the date of creation or publication.

Sui Generis Database Rights

  • Protects the contents of the database if there has been a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting the data.
  • Lasts for 15 years from the date of completion of the database. If substantial changes are made, a new 15-year term can start.

After the UK left the EU (Brexit), new databases created by UK citizens, residents, or businesses are no longer protected in the EEA. Similarly, new databases created in the EEA are not protected in the UK.


Copyright FAQs for Students

In the UK, the author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, therefore YOU will own the copyright in your PhD thesis. As a general rule, students will own the copyright in their PhD unless their degree was sponsored by their (former) employer, in which case they will own the copyright.

As copyright owner, you can use your thesis in any way you want. You may decide to publish your work but make sure to read the contract before signing it to understand what will happen to your rights under the publishing agreement. If there are certain rights that you would like to retain then you must negotiate before signing the contract.


The ownership of copyright for works created while at the university depends on the type of work and the creator’s role.

For works created by academic staff, copyright usually belongs to the university if the works are created as a part of their employment. This is valid for teaching materials. For scholarly works, the current practice is that authors own the copyright in their scholarly works. The Research Publications & Copyright Policy (2021) confirms this practice and also stipulates that “upon acceptance of publication each staff member with a responsibility for research agrees to grant the University of Edinburgh a non‐exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide licence to make manuscripts of their scholarly articles publicly available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence, or a more permissive licence” which will be deposited in a digital repository.

Generally, students will retain copyright in the works they create, such as theses or dissertations, unless they were part of a funded project where the university or their employer may have a claim. 

For work created by non-academic staff, such as administrative or technical staff, the copyright is typically owned by the university if it is produced as part of their employment.


Plagiarism is an ethical issue whereas copyright infringement is a legal issue. 

Plagiarism is using someone else's ideas or work (even if it is out of copyright) without giving proper credit. For example, passing off a few lines from Shakespeare as your own. Plagiarism is usually addressed by university policy and will have negative repercussions if violated, but it is not a legal matter.

Copyright infringement appears when one of the exclusive economic rights granted by copyright are used without permission from author or right owner. It is important to note that not all uses without permission of copyright materials are considered infringement, as some may fall under exceptions like fair dealing or fair use.  Copyright infringement can have serious legal consequences, including fines and lawsuits.


Yes. At first glance this may appear to be prohibited by copyright law, but copying limited material such as an article from a journal issue or an extract from a book for your own private study is allowed as long as it is 'fair dealing'. The purpose of this exception is to provide students and researchers boarder access to resources even though they may be protected by copyright. 

The exception for research & private study applies to all types of works protected by copyright and can be invoked only if:

  • the purpose of the use is non-commercial research and/or private study
  • the use of the materials is fair
  • researchers or students will use the extracts for their own use only
  • the copyright holder is properly acknowledged 

The terms fair use and fair dealing are often confused, but they refer to different legal concepts in copyright law, primarily distinguished by their geographical application and scope:

Key differences:

Fair use is a concept in U.S. copyright law, while fair dealing is used in the UK and other Commonwealth countries. 

Fair use is broader and more flexible, allowing for a wider range of uses. Fair dealing is more narrowly defined and applies only to specific purposes.

Fair use is a flexible doctrine that allows the use of copyrighted material without permission under certain conditions. It is evaluated on a case-by-case basis using four factors: 

  • purpose and character of the use (e.g., commercial vs. educational)
  • nature of the copyrighted work
  • amount and substantiality of the portion used
  • effect of the use on the market value of the original work.

 This doctrine is adaptable and can apply to a wide range of uses, including those not explicitly listed in the law.

On the other hand, fair dealing is more specific and limited compared to fair use. It only applies to certain purposes, such as: 

  • research and private study
  • criticism, review, and quotation
  • news reporting
  • parody, caricature, and pastiche.

The use must be fair and not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner.

Understanding these differences is crucial for ensuring compliance with copyright laws in different jurisdictions. Overall, while both concepts aim to balance the rights of copyright holders with the interests of the public, fair use provides more room for interpretation and application.


Yes, you can use ChatGPT (or any of these AI tools) for creating summaries. It will fall under fair dealing – research and private study copyright exception. Anything more than one article or a chapter and it will be become more difficult to justify fair dealing. 

A much better solution would be to use Edinburgh (access to) Language Models (ELM), our own AI tool built using OpenAI API. We have signed a Zero Data Retention Agreement with OpenAI so they will not retain any of our data. Any input data / documents uploaded by students will only be held on their personal instance of ELM on university secure servers. Once the user closes their instance, no data is retained. Obviously, no personal data should be entered. 

Such AI tools are not yet formally regulated so what it is a good answer now may change in the future. Please make sure that you are up-to-date with the university AI guidance for staff and students. 


Copyright FAQs for Academics & Researchers

When you create a new work, you automatically own the copyright in it (unless you created the work for an employer). There is no need to apply for or register copyright. You may choose to add a copyright symbol (©) to your work, but there is no specific need to do so, copyright is automatic. Note that copyright protects works, not ideas.

For information on applying an open licence such as Creative Commons to your work, advice is provided by the Open Education Service.


Open Access usually refers to scientific outputs (such as monographs, research articles, data, etc.) that are freely accessible online without paywalls or subscription fees. Users can read, download, and often share this content without any cost. Making content available as open access can be considered a unilateral act of generosity or a 'liberality' by the copyright holder who waives some of their rights.

Creative Commons is a set of licenses that authors can apply to their work, specifying how others can use it. These open licenses might allow users to share, modify, or even use the content commercially, depending on the specific terms of the license. Unlike open access, Creative Commons licences are backed up by legal terms that are enforceable in a court of law.

In summary, Open Access ensures content is free to access, while Creative Commons provides specific permissions on how that content can be used.


That sounds like a tricky situation. Here are a few steps you can take:

Document Your Efforts. Keep a record of all your attempts to contact the copyright owner. This includes emails, letters, and any other forms of communication. This documentation can show that you made a genuine effort to obtain permission.

Re-attempt to contact the copyright owner. Double-check the accuracy of the copyright holder's contact details. Try contacting them through different channels (email, phone, social media, common acquittances etc). Consider sending a formal letter printed on university letter-headed paper and hand signed. It will definitely stand out from the pile of unwanted leaflets that we usually get.

Use a licensing agency. Sometimes, licensing agencies can help locate copyright owners or provide licenses for works when the owner is unresponsive. Organisations such as Design & Artists Copyright Society, Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society or Publishers’ Licensing Services or their foreign counterparts may be able to help. 

Check for Orphan Works. In some jurisdictions, there are provisions for using “orphan works” (works whose copyright owners cannot be identified or located). Following the 2012 Orphan Works Directive, an UK and an EU register were created. You will need to demonstrate that you have made a diligent search for the owner. There is a Diligent Search tool developed by Bournemouth University which guides you through the necessary steps of a diligent search.

Contact the Publisher. Explain your situation to the journal editor and provide them with the documentation of your efforts. It is generally and informally accepted that if you have sent at least three requests seeking permission, on three separate occasions, to the appropriate address, most publishers will be happy that ‘every effort’ has been made to obtain permission. Also, consider Fair Dealing – if applicable.

Explore Alternatives. Consider using a different image or work for your article. There are many resources for royalty-free or Creative Commons-licensed images that might suit your needs. Openverse is the perfect tool for identifying such alternatives.

As a last resort, consider removing the copyrighted image or work from your article if you cannot secure the required permission and none of the above options work.

While it can be frustrating when you can't obtain permission, it's important to respect copyright laws and avoid legal issues. By following these steps, you can increase your chances of resolving the situation or finding suitable alternatives.


As the screening is not solely for educational purposes even though it may be part of teaching curriculum, you will not be exempt from licensing requirements. For organizing a film screening at the university with the director, other guests, students, and members of the public, you’ll need a non-theatrical film licence. This licence is essential for public screenings outside of traditional cinemas. 

You can obtain such a licence from companies like Filmbankmedia and Motion Picture Licensing Corporation (MPLC). They both provide a Single Title Screening Licence (STSL) for non-theatrical screenings. Most importantly, Filmbankmedia and MPLC can offer specialist advice.

If the film is not available through these licensing companies, you may need to contact the film’s distributor directly. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) register can help you find the distributor.

If the film’s director or producers are attending, it’s good practice (and sometimes necessary) to get formal permission from them or the production company to screen the film, even if you have the STSL. This can avoid any disputes over rights or usage.

Ensure your venue has a licence to screen films containing music. This can be obtained through PPL PRS.

If you plan to advertise the event, ensure the licensing terms allow it, as some screening licences have restrictions on how the film can be promoted.

If you plan to sell tickets, inform the licensing agency, as this might affect the type or cost of the licence required. 

Ensure that all invited guests have necessary work permits or visas if they're from outside the UK. Any of the invited guests can give a one-off or short series of talks, such as acting as a speaker at a conference, as long as it is not for profit or a commercial event. It is important to note that they must not be paid for speaking at the conference or any other activity that they do in the UK whilst on a visitor visa. 


These may be good choices for novelists, creative writers or literary authors but from an academic author’s perspective, neither of these options is ideal; it is rather a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. None of these options will allow an academic author to publish their work open access or under a Creative Commons licence as required by their research funder (if there is one) or in line with the forthcoming REF requirements unless money are paid to the publisher.  

However, here are some factors to consider:

  • Control - many academic publishers often prefer to own the copyright, so assigning copyright is common practice. However, if you want more control over your work, you should ask the publisher whether they would allow the exclusive licence option. 
  • Financial Compensation - the terms of the agreement will likely outline the financial compensation you'll receive. If the publisher is offering a significant amount, assigning copyright might be acceptable. 
  • Future Use – if you’re planning to use this work for academic sharing (e.g., for conferences, teaching, or including it in a larger research body like a book), the exclusive licence gives you a bit more flexibility and security for future use. You should try to negotiate terms that allow you to use your work in certain non-commercial ways (like sharing with academic colleagues or posting on preprint repositories).
  • Negotiation Power - if you have a strong negotiating position (e.g., if you are a Nobel prize winner or your work is highly sought after), you may be able to negotiate better terms with the publisher, such as a non-exclusive license or a higher royalty rate.

It’s essential to review the specific terms of the agreement to ensure it fits your future plans and needs. 


In UK legislation, the terms "co-authors" and "joint authors" have distinct meanings, particularly in the context of copyright law. Both terms refer to authorship of works created by more than one person, but there are important differences in how the rights are handled and defined. 

In day-to-day use, co-author is a broader, informal term that refers to multiple individuals collaborating on a work. 

In legal terms, co-author refers to multiple authors who have each contributed to a work but their contributions can be identified separately. Co-authors typically have rights over their individual contributions to the work (for example, a chapter in a book or an article in a collection). Each co-author may own the copyright to their portion unless they assign it to a third party (e.g., a publisher).

Example - a book with different chapters written by separate individuals where each chapter can stand alone could involve co-authors.

Joint authors - the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) defines "joint authorship" as where two or more authors collaborate to create a work, and their contributions are indistinguishable or inseparable from each other.

In joint authorship, the contributions of each author are merged in such a way that they form a single, unified work. It is difficult or impossible to distinguish what each author contributed. Joint authors share copyright equally in the whole work, not just in their individual contributions. Any exploitation of the work (such as licensing) typically requires the consent of all joint authors, and revenue is shared among them. The copyright in a joint work lasts until 70 years after the death of the last surviving joint author.

Example – several academics write a research paper where the work is fully collaborative and integrated.


Creative Commons (CC) licenses are a suite of legal tools that allow creators to grant certain rights to their work while retaining copyright ownership. CC licences were designed from the very beginning to help creators share their works online openly and freely, while still maintaining control over how it is used. 

Creative Commons licences are not trying to replace copyright (it would be impossible); they are trying to simplify it and make it easier to understand and easier to use by people who do not have legal training. 

There are six different license types, listed from most to least permissive here: 

  • CC BY (Attribution): This license allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they give credit to you for the original creation. This is the most permissive license and encourages the broadest sharing and use of your work.
  • CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike): This license is similar to CC BY, but with the added requirement that any derivative works must be licensed under the same or similar terms. This is often compared to “copyleft” in software licenses and is used by projects like Wikipedia. 
  • CC BY-ND (Attribution- NoDerivatives): This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as the work is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you. No derivatives or adaptations of the work are permitted.
  • CC BY-NC (Attribution-NonCommercial): This license lets others remix, adapt, and build upon your work, but only for non-commercial purposes. You still receive credit, but others can’t use your work for profit.
  • CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike): This license allows for non-commercial use only and requires that derivative works be licensed under the same terms.
  • CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives): This is the most restrictive of the six licenses, allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change the work in any way or use it commercially.

You should use a CC license in academic publishing because it offers:

  • Increased Visibility and Reach - CC licenses allow easier sharing and distribution, meaning more people, including researchers, practitioners, and the general public, will have access to your work. This can lead to greater impact, more citations, and wider recognition of your research.
  • Facilitates Collaboration - research thrives on collaboration. CC licenses can make it easier for others to build upon your work legally, ensuring that they give you appropriate credit while potentially leading to new research collaborations or developments.
  • Aligns with UK HEIs Open Access Policies and Research Funders' Requirements - many academic institutions and funding bodies, including major UK universities and research councils, are encouraging (or requiring) open access publishing. Open access aligns with CC licenses because both promote the free dissemination of knowledge. Journals and repositories that encourage open access often use CC BY or similar licenses.
  • Flexibility in Rights Management - you can control how your work is used while still allowing others to engage with it. For example, you can choose a non-commercial license if you want to prevent companies from profiting off your work, or a no-derivatives license if you don’t want your work to be altered.
  • Legal Clarity - CC licenses provide clear, legally backed terms under which your work can be shared and used. This reduces the chance of misunderstandings or unauthorized use.
  • Ethical Responsibility - many academics see open access as an ethical imperative. By making your work freely available, you help to break down barriers to knowledge, especially for those who cannot afford expensive journal subscriptions or access fees.

In summary, CC licenses provide a structured way to share your research with the world, increase its impact, and meet institutional and funder expectations for open access while giving you control over how your work is used. It's a way to balance openness with your rights as a creator.


Copyright FAQs for Professional Services

The ownership of copyright for works created while at the university depends on the type of work and the creator’s role.

For works created by academic staff, copyright usually belongs to the university if the works are created as a part of their employment. This is valid for teaching materials. For scholarly works, the current practice is that authors own the copyright in their scholarly works. The Research Publications & Copyright Policy (2021) confirms this practice and also stipulates that “upon acceptance of publication each staff member with a responsibility for research agrees to grant the University of Edinburgh a non‐exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide licence to make manuscripts of their scholarly articles publicly available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence, or a more permissive licence” which will be deposited in a digital repository.

Generally, students will retain copyright in the works they create, such as theses or dissertations, unless they were part of a funded project where the university or their employer may have a claim. 

For work created by non-academic staff, such as administrative or technical staff, the copyright is typically owned by the university if it is produced as part of their employment.


The University of Edinburgh doesn’t have blanket licences so we’ll need to obtain the correct licences for each event. 

For playing both live or recorded music in public, we’ll need a public performance licence. TheMusicLicence offered by PPL PRS allows organisations to legally play music for employees or customers in their business through the radio, TV, other digital devices and live performances. Most importantly, PPL PRS will be able to offer expert advice.

A synchronisation licence will be required to synchronise music with visiting professor’s slides. This can be obtained from PRS for Music. Most importantly, PRS for Music will be able to offer expert advice. 

Regarding recording and live streaming – we’ll need to ensure that the music/songs used during the event are covered by TheMusicLicence above otherwise we’ll need to contact the rights-holders directly. Live streaming can be done via YouTube or other similar service, in which case no formal licence will be necessary. A live TV transmission can be done by a broadcasting organisation (BBC, Sky, ITV etc) authorised by Ofcom. 

For organising an event that involves amplified music that will be recorded and/or live-streamed, such as a dance, concert, variety show or similar, an entertainment licence may be obtained from the local council. Such a licence is required if the event is held between 11PM and 8AM and has an audience of more than 500 people. It is unlikely that such a licence will be needed on this occasion.

It is possible that one organisation (PPL PRS or PRS for Music etc) to be able to provide all the required licences. Or it may be necessary to contact two or three or more organisations to obtain the correct licences. Most importantly, get in touch with them early as they can provide you with accurate information on the necessary licenses, costs and how to obtain them.


For this inaugural lecture, you’ll need to ensure that all images and audio clips used in the presentation are properly licensed to avoid any copyright issues or the university could be held responsible for any unauthorized use of the works. This seems to be a public event, so the usual teaching exceptions will not apply. 

Here are some ideas for using images: 

  1. use images that are in the public domain, which means their copyright has expired or they were never copyrighted
  2. images under a Creative Commons licence can be used, as long as the professor will respect the terms of each particular licence (such as Attribution, Share-Alike, Non-Derivatives, Non-Commercial etc). Openverse is a very good search engine for this purpose.
  3. it is possible to purchase images from stock photo websites, as long as the professor complies with the terms of the licence provided by the site.
  4. Images that the professor created or has an explicit permission to use can be included in the lecture without the need of additional licences.  

Regarding audio clips:

  1. Similar to images, audio clips in the public domain can be used without restriction.
  2. Audio clips published under a Creative Commons licenses can be used if the terms of each licence are respected. 
  3. Sound effects can be purchased from platforms that offer royalty-free sound banks or in case of music clips - specific licences for public use.
  4. Sounds or audio clips that the professor created or has an explicit permission to use can be included in the lecture without the need of additional licences. 
  5. If it is music that will be played in public, we’ll need a public performance licence  such as TheMusicLicence offered by PPL PRS. PPL PRS will be able to advise regarding the exact type of licence needed. 
  6. A synchronisation licence may be required to synchronise music with slides. This can be obtained from PRS for Music. PRS for Music will be able to advise about the correct type of licence needed.

Additional considerations:

  • Public domain: Some materials, such as those created by government agencies, may be in the public domain and can be used without restrictions (Open Government Licence).
  • Fair dealing: In the UK, fair dealing provides some limited exceptions for the use of copyrighted materials in specific contexts, such as for ‘criticism, review, or quotation’, and ‘non-commercial research’. However, fair dealing exceptions are narrow and do not typically cover public performances or lectures like the one you are planning, especially when there are external guests.
  • Moral rights: Even if the speaker has the right to use a work, the creator may still have moral rights, such as the right to be attributed as the author. Be mindful of these rights and ensure appropriate attribution.

Least but not last, you’ll need to hire a catering & events company, such as Estates and Accommodation, Catering and Events (ACE), as they can indeed handle the licensing aspect if they are responsible for supplying and serving the alcohol. If they will be preparing and serving food, they should have a valid food hygiene rating. This ensures that the food served at your event meets the required health and safety standards.

By carefully considering these factors and obtaining the necessary licenses, you can ensure that your public event is compliant with all relevant regulations and runs smoothly.


Further information:

This article was published on