Friday 21 June 2013

IPO releases new draft exceptions for data analysis, education, research, libraries and archives

Following HM Government announcement in December last (on which see Ben's report here), a couple of weeks ago the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) published the first pieces of draft secondary legislation for technical review on private copying, parody, quotation and public administration. 

Confused by this changeable weather?
You're not the only one!
Probably to celebrate the arrival of summer [average summery temperature in South-East England: 16°C], today the UK IPO has released further pieces of draft legislation for technical review. These concern data analysis for non-commercial research, amendments to exceptions for education, and amendments to exceptions for research, libraries and archives. 

The IPO welcomes answers to the questions posed in each document and any specific drafting suggestions by 2 August 2013.
Comments can be submitted by email ( or - for vintage lovers - by post to:

Intellectual Property Office
Concept House
Cardiff Road
South Wales
NP10 8QQ
United Kingdom

The IPO will also be holding a series of open meetings in the week commencing 22 July 2013 to give an opportunity for discussion of the drafts. Numbers will be limited so you are advised to book your place by emailing 

1 comment:

Howard Knopf said...

Too bad, so sad that your IPO has rejected the much more enlightened "large and liberal" approach of the Supreme Court of Canada and Canada's Parliament.

All you need to do is put in the words "education, parody or satire" and you're well on the way to a modern approach to "fair dealing".

Canada's s. 29 now reads "Fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright."

Canada's Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that these fair dealing rights are "users' right", that they are "always available", that they must be given a "large and liberal" interpretation and "must not be interpreted restrictively" and that there is no need to look at nit-picky specific exceptions if the overall fair dealing provision fits.

Good luck. It looks as if you will need it.