Any reproduction or modification and subsequent use of a Belbin inventory (including with a self-scoring grid) is an infringement of our copyright.
We will – and do – take legal action against individuals, educational institutions and commercial organisations using unauthorised, pirated or modified versions of our inventories.
To date, we have taken successful legal action in over 450 copyright infringement cases.
You can find the most frequently-asked questions and arguments below, along with the response from our legal counsel.
Belbin questionnaires can only be completed online through the Belbin system. Our system analyses and norms your responses (along with those of your colleagues, manager etc) to produce a detailed, unique and informative report. The Belbin report gives an in-depth picture of your Team Role strengths and weaknesses, along with advice for using your strengths to best effect.
You can find out more about Belbin reports here or purchase online with a credit card here. If you're looking to open an account, please contact us using the form below.
If you are unsure about the testing your organisation is using, or would like further advice, please do get in touch.
We know that educational institutions teaching Belbin seek to provide a gold-standard education to students and to promote the value of academic endeavour, ideas and intellectual property.
It is generally accepted that educational establishments have the right to reproduce up to 5% or 10% of copyright for educational purposes.
However, the Belbin Self-Perception Inventory constitutes a separate literary work from the book in which it was first published. As such, it cannot be said that the reproduction of the entire SPI represents "fair dealing" under section 32 of the CDPA. For more information, please see the response from our legal counsel below.
We work with many Further and Higher Education institutions to deliver Belbin reports. We're happy to offer introductory rates to introduce Belbin within higher education. Please use the form below to get in touch.
We asked our legal counsel to respond to the most frequently-asked questions or claims regarding the copyright of the Self-Perception Inventory (SPI). The questions and responses are given below.
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides a defence to copyright infringement for certain educational purposes. The first requirement for that defence is that the institution be either a school (an educational institution which is outside the further or higher education sectors and which provides primary or secondary education or both) or an establishment specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the educational use infringement exceptions.
Section 36 of the 1988 Act then allows the copying of extracts of a work in certain circumstances. The provision does indeed have a limit of 5%, but this applies to a work, and not to a book. It is subject to the qualification that 'a work which incorporates another work is to be treated as a single work'. Thus an initial question arises as to whether the SPI is a work incorporated in another work. In my opinion, this provision is intended to cover diagrams in books, or poems included within novels. It is not intended to cover all works that might be gathered together in a published edition. By way of example, a collection of poems would not involve the incorporation of those poems within a single, compendious literary work for these purposes, such that individual poems might then comprise less than 5% of that collection. It is therefore very arguable that the SPI is to be considered as a work in its entirety, and not as part of the larger 'Management Teams' book. Furthermore, that argument will be stronger in respect of later editions of the SPI which have not been published within the book.
In any event, however, section 36(6) states as follows:
'Acts which would otherwise be permitted by this section are not permitted if, or to the extent that, licences are available authorising the acts in question and the educational establishment responsible for those acts knew or ought to have been aware of that fact.'
Belbin Limited runs a licensing scheme which involves accredited establishments who purchase SPI reports for student use. Such students will, of course, be licensees under the copyright in the SPI. I have no doubt that the wide availability and take up for the Belbin accreditation means that this scheme is one that establishments ought to have been aware of. It follows that the educational defence of section 36 will not be available in these circumstances.
The SPI qualifies for copyright protection as an original literary work. The term of protection will expire 70 years after the end of the calendar year of the death of Dr Meredith Belbin. As the law presently stands (and there are no plans to change it in this respect), it is only at that time – that is to say some time after 2088 – that the SPI will enter the ‘public domain’ and be susceptible to legitimate free reproduction in the UK.
It will be an infringement of the copyright in the SPI to reproduce a substantial part of the original work. In accordance with the Court of Justice decision in Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) EU:C:2009:465, that conclusion will follow in respect of any work which reproduces elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of Dr Meredith Belbin. In relation to the SPI, very extensive changes would in my opinion be necessary to escape infringement. Indeed, it is not easy to see how an altered copy of the SPI could retain its usefulness without remaining an infringement.
The name 'Belbin' is covered by an EU registered trade mark owned by Belbin Limited, registered for, amongst other goods and services, educational services relating to the field of team management. It will be an infringement of the rights in that registered trade mark for the name to be used so as to indicate a trading connection between a third party and Belbin Limited in relation to such educational services (or similar services). In this respect, I note that Belbin Limited runs an extensive licensing operation under which third parties, and in particular educational and training establishments, are permitted legitimately to use the name Belbin to indicate their status as accredited organisations. In these circumstances, it highly likely that the use of the Belbin name without a licence will be an act of infringement.
See 4. above. The name Belbin is being used to indicate a connection with Belbin, when there is no such link. That connection is being alluded to in the course of trade, and in relation to services for which Belbin Limited owns a registered trade mark. It is an infringement of the rights conferred by that trade mark.
Section 28B of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended provides a defence to infringement for private use. That defence only extends to reproduction which is both (i) for an individual's private use and (ii) is made for ends which are neither directly nor indirectly commercial. The use of portions of the SPI in an educational environment would not comprise use for an individual's private use. It would also be at least indirectly commercial. Accordingly, there is no prospect of such use being covered by this defence.
This wording refers to the licensing arrangement between Belbin Limited, who represent Dr Meredith Belbin, and the printer of the SPI. It is not a licence to further reproduce that printed work.
The reproduction of parts of the SPI will be an infringement of copyright. Although the removal of references to Belbin will avoid infringement of Belbin Limited’s EU trade mark, it will not diminish or restrict any liability for copyright infringement. On the contrary, it may comprise a non-attribution of authorship and therefore an infringement of the moral rights of Dr Belbin in addition to copyright infringement.
Please complete this form and we will get in touch.