What future for UK copyright after Brexit? A report on IPKat-BLACA panel discussion

Posted by Eleonora Rosati to the IPKat 

On 19 October last IPKat and the British Literary and Artistic Copyright Association (BLACA) partnered once again and organised a panel discussion on the implications that the departure of the UK from the EU (aka 'Brexit) will have on UK copyright law.

Moderated by myself, the panel featured Sir Richard Arnold (High Court Judge, Chancery Division), Nicholas Saunders (Barrister, Brick Court Chambers), Ros Lynch (Copyright and IP Enforcement Director, IPO), Ian Moss (Director Public Affairs, BPI), Tom Ohta (Senior IP lawyer, BT), and Estelle Derclaye (Professor of IP Law, University of Nottingham). 

Asked what EU development has had the biggest impact - for better or worse - on UK copyright, Sir Richard highlighted at the outset how a number of developments would have occurred independently from UK membership of the EU. These include the changes mandated by the WIPO Copyright Treaties, TRIPS, the Marrakesh Treaty and the Beijing Treaty. However, there have been also legislative interventions prompted by EU membership, including the introduction into UK law of the resale royalty right (droit de suite). 

In all this, however, the learned judge noted that what has had a systemic impact has been in particular the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which has touched upon basic concepts such as originality (which Prof Derclaye said to require more than just sufficient skill, labour or effort, as per the traditional UK approach) and has resulted in UK courts embedding - as is apparent from the SAS case - the idea/expression dichotomy into UK law. Also Mr Saunders stressed the relevance of CJEU jurisprudence, and discussed the case of the right of communication to the public, which so far has been subject to nearly 20 references for a preliminary ruling.

I asked Sir Richard whether he thought that CJEU case law also mandates an open-ended approach to copyright subject-matter. Sir Richard and the other panellists noted that it is not sure that EU law - or rather CJEU interpretation of it - requires to adopt this approach and possibly (but not necessarily) further clarity might be provided when the CJEU decides Levola Hengelo, C-310/17, ie the cheese case [see here].

The discussion then moved to the policy initiatives that UK Government might need to take in the copyright area. Ms Lynch highlighted how, compared to other areas of IP, copyright is not particularly problematic. However, some adjustments would be required, eg with regard to the database right, and the country of origin principle.

When asked about the perspective of UK creative industries, Mr Moss noted how there are some pressing issues to address, including with regard to live performances. Uncertainties over immigration rules post-Brexit, as well as potential visa requirements for UK musicians and performers travelling abroad and EU nationals coming to the UK, should be addressed as soon as possible in order to avoid having to cancel shows that - for 2019 - have already started being arranged and booked. With regard to copyright rules, Mr Moss noted that certain aspects of the proposal for a directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market should be transposed into UK law, even in a scenario of hard Brexit.

Turning to the issue of enforcement, Mr Ohta noted that UK courts have developed a solid jurisprudence on jurisdiction over intermediary injunctions. The discussion then moved to the issue of responsibility for implementation costs of injunctions granted against intermediaries. It will be crucial to see what the UK Supreme Court decides in Cartier next year.

The audience engaged with questions and comments, and was particularly interested in the relevance of CJEU case law post-Brexit. According to s6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill [see here for the progress of the Bill], "[a] court or tribunal— (a) [shall not be] bound by any principles laid down, or any decisions made, on or after exit day by the European Court, and (b) cannot refer any matter to the European Court on or after exit day." However, "A court or tribunal need not have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court, another EU entity or the EU but may do so if it considers it appropriate to do so." What that will mean remains unclear.

As a final wrap-up question, I asked the panellists to indicate one area of copyright that they would like to see changed after Brexit, should the UK have the power to do so. Sir Richard noted that, although he was not indicating any specific preference, the UK might have a discussion around the re-introduction of s52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) [which the UK repealed as a consequence of the CJEU Flos decision]. Prof Derclaye, Mr Ohta and Mr Saunders indicated case law on communication to the public as being in need of some rethinking, with Mr Saunders also adding the introduction of a new private copying exception [s28B CDPA was repealed shortly after it was introduced, on grounds that Government had failed to provide appropriate evidence as to why there was no need of a fair compensation requirement]. Mr Moss said there is no particular need to reform UK copyright law, although greater cooperation from intermediaries would be good. Considering how busy the UK IPO is already with other IP rights, Ms Lynch concluded by saying that she wishes that no immediate changes are necessary. 

Adventures in Personal Copying (Part 1)

Yin Harn Lee

Did you think that adoption by the UK of an exception for private copying personal copies for private use [here] was the end of the story, so that everybody could finally live happily ever after?

Apparently this is not what happened. 

1709 Blog friend Yin Harn Lee (University of Sheffield) reports on her recent (mis-)adventures.

Here's what Yin Harn writes:

"Recently, I bought a DVD of the first season of the Sleepy Hollow TV series, which had been recommended to me for its diverse cast, its implausible yet convincingly executed premise, and the soulful eyes of its male lead Tom Mison. 

As I have a TV capable of reading USB memory devices, but no DVD player, it was my intention to rip the episodes onto a USB device so that I could view them comfortably on my TV. This was on the basis of the newly-enacted section 28B of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (‘CDPA’) which, since 1 October 2014, permits individuals to make personal copies of works (other than computer programs) that they have acquired lawfully and on a permanent basis for their own private use (see previous post here).

My intentions of enjoying Tom Mison’s face this exciting and fast-paced TV show in full 32-inch-screen glory were, however, stymied by what appeared to be a technological protection measure (‘TPM’) applied to the DVD, which prevented me from copying the episodes. 

Recalling that the newly-enacted personal copying exception in the CDPA also introduced several provisions permitting individuals to issue notices of complaint to the Secretary of State where they are prevented from making personal copies by restrictive measures applied by or on behalf of the copyright owner (see section 296ZEA of the CDPA), I took to the Internet to discover how such a complaint might be made. 

Typical eagerness to learn about
the intricacies of copyright law

This led to a discovery of a form on the IPO website, which requires complainants to provide, inter alia, details about themselves, the work concerned, and the copyright exception(s) which they are seeking to benefit from.

The section of the form that caught my eye first of all was Section 7, which states:

          “Details of your discussion with the rightholder(s)

“It is important that you have tried to reach a solution with the rightsholder(s). Please set out the steps you have taken to try to agree a solution with the rightholder(s).

“Include here any suggestions made by the rightsholder(s) and any reasons why the solution is not acceptable to you.

“Please enclose copies of relevant correspondence.”

I found this curious, as the relevant provision in the CDPA does not appear to impose on the individual seeking to benefit from the personal copying exception any obligation to reach a solution with the rightholder in relation to the TPMs that prevent that person from doing so. In fact, section 296ZEA(3) of the CDPA states that:

“Following receipt of a notice of complaint, the Secretary of State may give to the owner of that copyright work or an exclusive licensee such directions as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite or expedient for the purpose of –

“(a) establishing whether any voluntary measure or agreement relevant to the copyright work subsists, or

“(b) (where it is established there is no subsisting voluntary measure or agreement) ensuring that the owner or exclusive licensee of that copyright work makes available to the complainant or the class of individuals represented by the complainant the means of benefiting from section 28B to the extent necessary to benefit from that section.”

Unwanted consequence
of trying to understand
UK private copying exception?

This seems to place the onus on the rightholder to establish whether such voluntary solutions do exist, and if not, to take steps necessary for ensuring that the complainant is able to benefit from the personal copying exception.

In fairness, it should be noted that section 296ZEA(5) of the CDPA does state:

“The Secretary of State may also give directions –

“(a) as to the form and manner in which a notice of complaint in subsection (2) may be delivered,

“(b) as to the form and manner in which evidence of any voluntary measure or agreement may be delivered, and

“(c) generally as to the procedure to be followed in relation to a complaint made under this section,

“and shall publish directions given under this subsection in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks will secure adequate publicity for them.”

However, while this gives the Secretary of State some discretion for determining the procedure for issuing a notice of complaint, it would seem not to go so far as to allow the onus of establishing the existence of voluntary solutions to be shifted to the individual, rather than the rightholder. There are also practical implications: individual users are unlikely to be in a position to negotiate effectively with rightholders, and may even have difficulty identifying the correct rightholder in the first place.

In my case, aware that Sleepy Hollow is produced by Twentieth Century Fox in the US, I have decided to get in touch with them via the contact form here to see if they are prepared to offer any solutions to my TPM woes. Suggestions as to the wording I should use would be very welcome."

1709 Blog readers: any suggestions that could lead to Adventures in Personal Copying (Part 2)?

Orphan works in the UK: a caring home at last?

Fun is guaranteed when you know
everything about 'diligent search' ...

Issues surrounding orphan works are not only important, but also make a great topic of conversation for summer gatherings. If you are running short of insights into this fascinating copyright-related topic, don't worry because 1709 Blog friend Tom Ohta of Bristows LLP (@tom_ohta) is coming to your rescue. 

Here's what Tom writes:

Orphan Works: here we come!

As readers may recall, earlier this year, the UK government launched a technical consultation [here] on the draft secondary legislation to introduce a licensing scheme for orphan works in the UK [on which this blogger wrote a longer (and critical) piece here] and to transpose the Orphan Works Directive into English law.

The UK government has now considered the responses to its technical consultation and taken these into account in the amended text of two regulations which have now been laid before Parliament: the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Licensing of Orphan Works) Regulations 2014 (which introduces the orphan work licensing scheme) and the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works) Regulations 2014 (which transposes the Orphan Works Directive into English law). The amendments made to the text following the consultation are primarily ones of refinement.

... Just look at Tom's smile!

Previously, orphan works have been the subject of somewhat sensationalist (and misleading) commentary with buzz words such as the ‘Instagram Act’ which was ‘abolishing copyright’ [here]. A good starting point for those seeking to get up to speed with orphan works is the UK IPO’s (37-page) response to the technical consultation which summarises the comments received and sets out its current position. In particular, there are helpful flow-charts of how the licensing scheme is intended to work and the process under the Orphan Works Directive (at pages 4 and 5).

However… for those looking for the headline points, these are summarised below for your perusal, followed by some thoughts on possible issues that may arise in the future.

Authorising body

·    The UK IPO will be the authorising body responsible for granting orphan licences.

Diligent search

·    A ‘reasonable search’ of the ‘relevant sources’ must be conducted. The regulation requires applicants to search the register maintained by the UK IPO and the databases maintained by OHIM.

·    Where the UK IPO and OHIM searches fail to reveal the owner of the work, applicants must then check the sources listed in Part 2 of Schedule ZA1 to the CDPA: these are set out in the Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works Regulations, and different sources (including collecting societies) are listed depending on the type of work in question, eg audiovisual, visual works, newspapers etc.

·    It is likely that the Copyright Hub will play an important role in the functioning of the licensing scheme by having, for example, inter-linked databases to reduce the cost of diligent searches. However, it is currently still at a test phase.

With your diligent search
having a 7-year validity,
you may even think of
spending this time abroad

·    A diligent search will be valid for 7 years. 

Applying for an orphan licence

·    Applicants must provide information in the orphan licence application form (which has not yet been released) showing that a diligent search has been conducted, and specifying how it intends to use the orphan work.

·    It remains to be seen what level of detail the IPO will require to satisfy the diligent search requirements. It is worth noting the detailed sector-specific guidelines on due diligence criteria for orphan works which are set out in a Joint Report published in May 2008 as part of the European Digital Libraries Initiative.

It is unclear to what extent the IPO will have regard to these Joint Report guidelines when considering applications under the Licensing of Orphan Works regulation. In particular, the Joint Report guidelines suggest that as part of a diligent search, the applicant should take steps to publicise the orphan work, for instance, in trade publications, social networks, and in the press. This is likely to increase time and cost, and it is questionable whether it would be proportionate to require applicants to take such steps under the UK regime.  

Licence terms

·    An orphan work licence permits the licensee to carry out acts that would otherwise infringe copyright or performers’ rights for up to 7 years. However, there is a statutory prohibition against the grant of exclusive licences and sub-licensing is not permitted.

·    The licence may be granted subject to conditions, and the IPO has the discretion to vary the licence terms during its term.

·    Whether a licence can be transferred is not addressed in the regulation. However, the IPO has indicated that transferability of licences will be dealt with in the licence terms, and the normal position is that they will not be freely transferable, although each case will be considered on its facts.

Grounds of refusal

·    The IPO may refuse to grant a licence where it considers that the proposed adaptation or use of the work is ‘not appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the case, including whether the proposed adaptation constitutes derogatory treatment of the work’.

·    It also has a wide discretion to refuse to grant a licence on ‘any other reasonable ground’.

Licence fees

·    The IPO is entitled to charge a ‘reasonable licence fee’ for the licence term, bearing in mind factors such as the licence fees charged for a ‘similar use’ of a ‘similar relevant work’ which has not been orphaned. The IPO has been working closely with sector-specific groups (as listed in the response) to ascertain potential licence fees.

·    A reasonable additional amount can be added to the licence fee to cover the IPO’s costs.

·    The IPO must hold all orphan licence fees in a ring-fenced account, and must retain these for at least 8 years from the date on which the licence was granted.

·    After 8 years, if no rights holder comes forward to claim ownership, the IPO can deduct its reasonable costs from the retained fee, and apply any surplus ‘to fund social, cultural and educational activities’.

BREAKING:
IPO expects revenant rightholders
be in better shape than the one above

·    If a rights holder comes forward within 8 years from the date of the licence grant and satisfies the proof of ownership requirements of the orphan work (regarding which we currently have little information), the IPO must pay the rights holder the licence fee paid by the orphan licensee within 2 months.

·    If the rights holder comes forward after the 8 year period, the IPO has the discretion to remunerate the rights holder as it considers reasonable in all the circumstances.

 Appeals

·    A rights holder has a right of appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (presumably, to the General Regulatory Chamber) where it considers that the IPO has acted improperly or failed to comply with its obligations under the regulation. The procedural rules currently applicable to the General Regulatory Chamber can be found here.

·    An orphan licensee can appeal to the Copyright Tribunal (whose rules of procedure can be found here) if the IPO refuses to grant a licence. An appeal can also be lodged by the orphan licensee in respect of any conditions imposed by the IPO in connection with a granted licence, or in respect of the licence fee amount.

What’s next?

The regulations will now be laid before Parliament for approval, and are due to come into force on 29 October 2014 [this is also the deadline for transposing the Directive into the laws of Member States]. In the meantime, the UK IPO is no doubt being kept busy developing the IT system and further fleshing out the processes underlying the orphan works licensing scheme.

It is anticipated that a number of issues are likely to raise issues for stakeholders, including the following:

·    Striking the right balance when considering whether the diligent search requirements have been met: the IPO will need to tread carefully to ensure that it adopts a consistent approach which does not impose overly onerous obligations on orphan licensees but also adequately protects the interests of rights holders, whilst considering the interests of those responding to diligent search requests.

·    Obligations on organisations responding to diligent search requests: the IPO acknowledges the collecting societies’ views that where an organisation receives a diligent search request, it is up to that organisation whether or not they respond, and if so, whether they can charge for providing that service. Given that the regulation does not impose any positive obligations on organisations to respond to diligent search requests, how will an organisation’s refusal to respond to a request (for instance, because it is particularly onerous) or a licensee’s refusal to pay an organisation’s requested administration fee (for instance, because it considers that it is unreasonably high) be taken into account when the IPO evaluates whether a ‘reasonable search’ has been carried out?

·    Global access to digitised orphan works: the scope of the orphan licence extends to digitising orphan works and making them available online. However, the statutory scope of the licence is restricted to use within the UK. Thus, where orphaned content is made available online, it raises questions as to how to address concerns about unlawful use of orphan content in other jurisdictions.

Whilst there are technical measures, such as geo-blocking, that could be deployed, where a site contains both orphan and non-orphan content, this can be an overly blunt tool. In the future however, it is feasible that reciprocal agreements are entered into with other countries to enable UK-issued orphan licences to be valid in those territories and vice versa [this is indeed something that this blogger heard IPO officers saying at a recent conference].

·    Dealing with ‘works within works’: how far does a diligent search need to go in respect of a work which contains multiple works within it – for instance, or a book which contains photos or drawings?

·    Moral rights: the law in this area is still evolving (for instance, in relation to moral rights and parody) and it will be interesting to see how the IPO will deal with moral rights issues when reviewing orphan licence applications.

It is likely to take some time before we are able to see how effectively the orphan licensing scheme will work in practice, and there will undoubtedly be further issues that arise as the orphan work licensing scheme develops. Watch this space.

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 (copyrightconsultation@ipo.gov.uk) or - for vintage lovers - by post to:

Intellectual Property Office

Concept House

Cardiff Road

Newport

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 copyrightconsultation@ipo.gov.uk.