In November 2010 Prime Minister David Cameron announced an independent review on how Intellectual Property framework supports growth and innovation.
The copyright regime cannot be considered fit for the digital age when millions of citizens are in daily breach of copyright… People are confused about what is allowed and what is not, with the risk that the law falls into disrepute.
Chaired by Professor Ian Hargreaves and assisted by a panel of experts, the review, entitled Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, has now been released.
Professor Hargreaves blogged:
Interviews on the BBC Radio 4 Today Show, Five Live and the Media Show all seemed to go OK. Making the connection between copyright and the wider economy is the hardest thing to get across.
On Radio 4, Ian Hargreaves spoke of the importance of ensuring that IP rights, particularly copyright, do not unintentionally get in the way of industry arising out of the internet. This is reflected in the review and singles out copyright for the most extensive consideration.
With the focus on improving copyright licensing opportunities, it has been welcomed in a number of quarters for its potential to help develop and promote creative businesses in Britain. The Review makes 10 recommendations designed to ensure that the UK has an IP framework best suited to supporting innovation and promoting economic growth in the digital age.
Image rights campaign group Stop43 fears that a ‘Digital Copyright Exchange’ would ‘foster the idea that any intellectual property not registered can be assumed to be treated as orphan…’
THE GOOD
- No US-style “Fair Use”
- A role for Ofcom in regulating digital competition
- Small Claims fast track in the Patents County Court
THE BAD
- The Digital Copyright Exchange: a potentially great idea but fatally flawed as described in this Report
THE UGLY
- No strengthening of Moral Rights
- No Fair Contract Law for IP
- Mandatory registration of work to avoid orphan status
- Commercial use of Orphan Works and Extended Collective Licensing – the return of Clause 43.
After the millions of words said and written in the past six years, the three previous IP Reviews, the consultations, and the careful explanations of the nuances of photo licensing and examples of unintended consequences, photographers appear yet again to have been thrown under a bus. Read more www.stop43.org.uk
Features of the review according to Adamson Jones Patent and Trade Mark firm are:
Access to Orphan Works
Copyright arises automatically whenever an original work is created, and the right does not have to be registered or actively maintained by the owner. Copyright lasts until 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.
An orphan work is a copyrighted work for which the copyright owner cannot be contacted (either because the owner is not known, or because the name but no other information is known). This can particularly present problems for creators seeking to produce derivative works (such as a translation or a podcast of a written article) as permission to use the original work cannot be obtained from the rights holder.
Currently, in the UK such a work can be used if it can be shown that “reasonable efforts” have been made to trace the copyright owner, but in practice this defence is unlikely to succeed unless the work is anonymous. In the review, it is proposed that the government legislate to allow access to orphan works where the copyright owner cannot be traced.
‘Fair Use’ Provision
There had been some discussion of introducing a provision analogous to the US ‘Fair Use’ provision in the UK. This provision allows limited use of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder, for example in news reporting, teaching or research.
However, in his report Ian Hargreaves has counselled away from such a move in the belief it is unlikely to be legally feasible. Instead, he recommends that the UK fully take up copyright exceptions already allowed under EU law; these will take into account technological advances where they do not threaten copyright owners.
Read the Review in full click here www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm website link
