The Last Word on the UK Orphan Works Scheme for 2015?

As we mentioned in our posting to mark the completion of the first 12 months of the UK's Orphan Work Licensing scheme, the IPO has now published its own report on the first year's operation. The report also covers some limited analysis of the EU Orphan Works Directive scheme.

The report is mercifully brief (24 pages) and aided by a number of tables and infographics to display the data. As part of the legislative process concerning Part 6 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 which, inter alia, set up the IPO sponsored scheme, the minister agreed to report back to Parliament after the first year, and this document fulfils that undertaking.

Since we have already looked at the statistics for the first year in our earlier posting, it is intended just to examine the other main points which come out in the IPO report. These are:

• Experience of using the system has led to a refinement of the guidance on how to conduct diligent searches;
• Some usage fees have been adjusted thanks to feedback from users and others.
• No licences have been refused and no returning rights holders have come forward to claim their works.

The report also looks at the results of a survey of users of the scheme conducted by the IPO. The IPO acknowledges that the sample size (19 respondents) is too small to draw any firm conclusions from, but nonetheless, the feedback has been useful and may lead to future amendments to the system. In particular there is a table showing the various points at those who did not complete their application, abandoned the process.

And finally the report looks briefly at the experience of the EU Directive mandated process, which is open to major institutions such as publicly funded libraries, archives and museums etc. Only 10 UK institutions have so far registered with the OHIM (which administers the EU system), but this compares favourably with a total of 61 registrations across the whole EU. These 10 institutions are not identified in the report and between them they have created 53 entries in the OHIM database together with 14 records relating to embedded works, although again no details are included. Interestingly the UK registrations have resulted in 2 rights holders coming forward to claim their works. This compares with 25 returning rights holders across the whole of the EU for a total of 1399 registrations. It remains to be seen whether these figures indicate that some of the searches have been less than diligent (given that registrants self-certify and this is not checked either by OHIM or the national authorities such as the IPO).

The 1709 blog's good friend John R Walker will be delighted to know that the IPO collected £1,492 in administrative fees for the first 12 months, and is holding £8,001.97 in licence fees on behalf of any rights holders, should they become known within the next 8 years.

The Adopted Orphans are One Year old

The UK IPO's Orphan Works Register has now been operating for twelve months. Readers may recall that we took a look at its progress at the six month point here, with a follow-up here.

The second six months have seen much less activity. Only 31 new applications have been received, taking the total to 294 for the whole year. However the proportion of successful applications has stayed the same at 83%. As was noted at the six month point, the vast majority of applications have been for still images (229) with written works (47) in second place. However the success rate for written works is much lower at 55%. Sound recordings come in third place (14 of which 12 were granted licences) and musical notation, scripts & choreography, and moving images only having one or two applications for each category.

The Museum of the Order of St John still stands out as the institution with the most applications (179), all of which have been successful. More commercial bodies such as book publishers and a promotions agency have also been among the applicants, and while it would seem that the former might be seeking to re-publish out-of-print books, exactly what the promotions agency intends to do with its licensed works is less clear. Unfortunately they did not reply to our enquiry. All the register tells us is that the intended use is "in a sound/music production that is available as a audio-only product e.g. CD".

Nor is it always apparent why a number of applications have been withdrawn (this terminology appears to be synonymous with 'licence not granted'). But clearly one or two applications seem to have been misconceived from the outset. Take for example application number OWLS000038-1 submitted in July, for the lyrics to the Benny Hill song Ernie (The Fastest Milkman in the West).  The application notes that Columbia (later Sony Music) who issued the record claim not to hold the copyright, but this is hardly surprising as the Benny Hill estate* or a music publisher is most likely to be the owner of any copyright in the lyrics. One quick call to PRS should have sorted that one out.

Later this month the IPO is due to publish its own review of the first year of the Register's existence, along with a review of how the EU Orphan Works Directive scheme in the UK has fared. This system is available to certain libraries, museums and archives to self-certify that they have conducted diligent searches for copyright owners of works they hold and thus saves them the fees payable for using the IPO system.

* Benny Hill (real name Alfred Hawthorn Hill) died intestate and it was reported that his estate passed to seven nieces and nephews.

What's going on in Europe? UK IPO needs you!

Having enjoyed a truly dreamlike sunny weather in Cambridge, this blogger thought of concluding the day in glory by checking what was new over her various social media. While on Twitter, she discovered this tweet from the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO):

A call for help + in the area of EU copyright: is there anything better to end a perfect day? 

The areas on which the IPO is particularly keen on receiving interested parties' views as well as any supporting evidence [ever heard of it?] are Commission's IP Strategy (1709 Blog related posts here) and the [infamous? see IPKat posts here and here] Licences for Europe initiative. 

Summer in Cambridge

Overall, the IPO has posed quite a few questions in order to develop its thinking on how best to respond to forthcoming developments in EU copyright. Answers are in fact intended to help IPO "understand the impact that potential changes to the European copyright framework might have."

The following are the issues on which YOUR feedback is needed:

1. The European Commission has highlighted a number of areas for consideration in its 

Intellectual Property Strategy. 

a. Are there any comments you would like to make on the proposals that have been highlighted?

b. Are there any further steps which need to be taken to complete the Single Market in this area? If so, what?

c. Are there any areas where European copyright law [or rather case law, given that current EU law-maker appears to be the Court of Justice, rather than EU legislative] needs amendment to ensure it is keeping pace with technological development? If so, where?

Are you brave enough to rescue IPO?

2. Of the four areas highlighted by the European Commission for their “Licences for Europe” dialogues, are there particular points that you would like to raise? [by the way, at the beginning of July a mid-term plenary session took place: does anyone know what happened there?]

You have time until 11 October 2013 to help IPO. You can submit your contribution either by email (policy@ipo.gov.uk) or post to:

Copyright and Enforcement Directorate

Room 1Y05

Intellectual Property Office

Concept House

Cardiff Road

Newport

NP10 8QQ