JURISDICTION REPORT: UK
THE FUTURE OF COPYRIGHT EXEMPTION IN THE UK
Patrick Cantrill and Chris Hoole Walker Morris
Historically,
implementation of
the UK has taken a relatively narrow approach to the the governing EU Directives on statutory copyright
exemptions. However, technological developments have necessitated a review of the present exemption regime under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 (CDPA). Led by the Hargreaves Review in 2011, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has released for comment draſt provisions which are intended to make the current copyright exemptions fit for a digital age.
Current UK copyright exemptions Te CDPA exempts infringement a number of specified acts, which include but are not limited to:
• Non-commercial research and private study in relation to literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works (Section 29 CDPA); and
• Criticism or review of any copyright work, and news reporting in relation to all copyright works except photographs (Section 30 CDPA).
Te above exemptions are subject to the condition of ‘fair dealing’,
considered in the UK to be acts or usage of the works which do not have a significant economic impact on the interests of the copyright owner.
Other exempted acts include making of temporary copies of copyright work (Section 28A CDPA); teaching in education (Sections 32 to 36A CDPA); libraries and archives (Sections 37 to 44A CDPA) and ‘time shiſting’, ie, copying, within certain limitations, for the purpose of the user enjoying recordings, etc, at a more convenient time (Section 70 CDPA).
What next for UK copyright? In June 2013, the UKIPO published, in three parts, draſt legislation for the amendment of the CDPA so as to “modernise copyright exceptions”. Te first batch of proposed exemptions, which will all be subject to the fair dealing requirement, include private copying, parody, quotation and public administration.
Te Hargreaves Review identified that under current legislation, format shiſting—the everyday act of transferring digitally acquired content to another device, for personal use—is unlawful in the UK. Under the draſt bill, a person (ie, not a company) will be allowed to reproduce/download a work lawfully acquired (not rented) by him/her, be it a CD or eBook, for individual private use (ie, not directly or indirectly commercial) and transfer it to any electronic device, such as an MP3 player or even to the ‘cloud’. Tis exemption is limited and does not, for example, permit copies for multiple people, including family members.
While format shiſting may already be a commonly accepted practice, the proposed parody exemption is likely to cause consternation among copyright owners, in particular those from the music and film industry.
Te exemption is intended to offer creative industries greater freedom to parody and make “minor use” of another person’s work without that person’s permission.
New and easier to use technologies have spawned a fashion for creating and sharing parody work. By making this a fair dealing exemption, it is anticipated that authors will still be protected from those looking to push the boundaries of parody and to gain a commercial advantage unfairly by mimicking their works—it will not provide a defence to outright copying.
Te second round of draſt exemptions includes data analysis for non- commercial work, education (broadening the exemption to all forms of copyright work), and also amendments to exceptions for research, libraries and archives (extending the exemption to apply to sound recording, films or broadcasts). Te final draſt, released on July 31, 2013, amends the copyright exemption for people with disabilities, widening its applicability to all types of disabilities which prevent access to copyright work, not just visual impairment.
Te exemption of data analysis is again intended to bring the UK into line with common digital practices such as ‘text and data mining’, so as to give the fullest support to research organisations. Modern technologies are also recognised in the proposed education exemption which, provided a licence is not already available, will permit broadcasts via secure distance learning networks as long as the material is not transmitted to people unaffiliated with the educational establishment.
Te proposed copyright exemptions will, in the most part, bring UK law into line with current trends in the digital age, where format shiſting is rife, and where technology allows users, from the comfort of their own homes, to create and share parodies through social media channels such as YouTube and Twitter.
Undoubtedly, the proposed expansion of the statutory exemption regime will be seen by some as weakening the degree of exclusivity provided to copyright owners under existing UK legislation, and as an opportunity for unscrupulous users to take unfair advantage of their creative skill and effort without having to provide due compensation.
Patrick Cantrill is head of the IP group at Walker Morris. He can be contacted at:
patrick.cantrill@
walkermorris.co.uk
Chris Hoole is a solicitor at Walker Morris. He can be contacted at:
chris.hoole@walkermorris.co.uk
186 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196