Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

BLACA 9 th January 2014 Latest UK and EU Copyright Developments Maria Frabboni Uma Suthersanen Hugh Jones Florian Koempel.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "BLACA 9 th January 2014 Latest UK and EU Copyright Developments Maria Frabboni Uma Suthersanen Hugh Jones Florian Koempel."— Presentation transcript:

1 BLACA 9 th January 2014 Latest UK and EU Copyright Developments Maria Frabboni Uma Suthersanen Hugh Jones Florian Koempel

2  Background  UK: Changes to exceptions – Modernising Copyright  UK: Orphan works (Orphan Works Directive and Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013)  UK: Other relevant initiatives – repeal of Section 52 CDPA  EU: Review of EU copyright rules Overview

3  Background  UK: Changes to exceptions – Modernising Copyright  UK: Orphan works (Orphan Works Directive and Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013)  UK: Other relevant initiatives – repeal of Section 52 CDPA  EU: Review of EU copyright rules Overview

4  May 2011: Review and recommendations of intellectual property by Professor Hargreaves  December 2012: UK Government policy document: Modernising Copyright  Summer 2013: draft wording of exceptions for Technical Review  Feb 2014?: laying of draft amended wording plus new IAs for adoption by secondary legislation (affirmative procedure); all exceptions or only selected ones?  April 2014?: Commencement Background - Changes to exceptions

5 Current proposal (as of 11 th December):  New Section 30B CDPA: exception for any fair dealing with the work for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche  Art 5 (3k) Information Society Directive Practical concerns:  Definition of fair dealing and parody, caricature and pastiche  Relation with moral rights  Policy? New Exception for Parody

6 Current proposal:  New Section 28B CDPA: exception for uses of a copy of a copyright work by an individual lawfully acquired by him to make a further copy of that work with the additional conditions that: o copy for that individual’s private use for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial; o original copy held by the individual on a permanent basis; and o [not made circumventing effective technological measures]  Art 5 (2b) Information Society Directive Practical concerns:  Scope  Lack of fair remuneration New Exception for Private copying

7 Current proposal:  Amend Section 29 to cover all types of copyright work for the purposes of non-commercial research and private study (fair dealing).  Replace Sections 37 to 40 with a new section 37 covering the copying from published works by librarians for non- commercial research and private study;  Replace Sections 41 to 43 with a new Section 41 covering the supply of copies to other libraries:  New Section 43A cover the making available of works through dedicated terminals This is based on Art 5 (2c) and (3n) Information Society Directive Exceptions for Research, Libraries and Archives

8 Practical concerns  Distinguishing non-commercial research and private study from non-commercial use for the educational purposes of an educational establishment.  Distinguishing uses under s 29 as amended from licensed uses linked to application of s 35 and s 36 provisions for educational use.  How do you research a film or a sound recording without watching the film or listening to the sound recording in the same way as viewers or listeners who are not undertaking research or private study? Exceptions for Research, Libraries and Archives II

9 New “Fair Dealing” provision in Section 32 “for the purpose of instruction”.  How does instruction relate to “education”.  Art 5 (3a) Information Society Directive permits an exception only to the reproduction and communication to the public right concerning “use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching”.  Change wording to apply permitted act for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching during the course of instruction.  Make it clear that the provisions do not apply to use by educational establishments when uses are covered by Sections 35 or 36 or licensing schemes operating under these provisions. Amendments to Exceptions for Education Section 32

10 Section 35 – Recording and subsequent use of recordings of broadcasts and material included in them for non commercial educational use by Educational Establishments  Changes will extend the scope of the permitted acts under the Section 35 whilst retaining a licensing option for rights owners.  The current arrangements for certifying licensing schemes operating under the provisions will be removed but licensing will apply “if licences are available authorising the copying in question and the person making the copies knew or ought to have been aware of the fact.  ERA licensing – use not just “copying” – off premises access for distance learners. Amendments to Exceptions for Education Section 35

11 Small Extract Copying by Institutions  Educational establishments may make copies.  And provide to staff and students.  Can be either physical copies or, now, electronic copies.  Further copies can also be made (e.g. storage rights?).  Amount copied increasing from 1% per quarter to 5% per annum.  Crucially licence override retained. Amendments to Exceptions for Education Section 36

12 New Exception for Quotation Current proposal:  Amend current fair dealing exception for criticism and review, reframing it as a quotation exception for purposes such as, but not limited to, criticism and review.  Quotation is in accordance with fair practice; and  Extent of the quotation is required by the specific purpose for which it is required  Art 5 (3d) Information Society Directive. Practical concerns:  Definition of fair dealing  Detailed application, e.g. what constitutes a quote of a photograph or an illustration.

13 Current proposal:  Extend existing exceptions for visually impaired people to include all types of disability that prevent someone from accessing a copyright work  Art.5 (3b) Information Society Directive  WIPO Marrakesh Treaty 2013 Comments:  “people with a disability”; and UK Equality Act  Lawful possession and “directly related” disabilities  Copies not commercially available  CLA licences vs contract override Amendments to exceptions for people with disabilities

14 Current proposal  New exception on data analysis for non-commercial research for a person who already has a right to access a copyright work (whether under a licence or otherwise) to copy the work as part of a technological process.  Art 5 (3a) Information Society Directive. Comments :  Art. 5 (3a) – “scientific” research only?  Section 29A conditions: non-commercial and “sufficient acknowledgment”  “Lawful access” vs subscribed content  Access conditions vs contract override?  Publishers license already? PLS and CCC schemes Exception for Data Analysis for Non-commercial Research

15  Can UK make contract terms “unenforceable” under EU law?  Information Society Directive Recital 45 and Art 9; exceptions “where not subject to purchase or licensing terms”; Human Rights Convention/Act – Art.10  Effect on current licences. Enforceability of TPMs under Art.6 and Section 296A; managing access for data mining?  Too many/varied licences? Model and Consortium licences.  Risk of uncertainty and foreign contracts. “Unreasonable” test, or Irish “irrelevant” alternative? Unenforceability of contractual override

16  Background  UK: Changes to exceptions – Modernising Copyright  UK: Orphan works (Orphan Works Directive and Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013)  UK: Other relevant initiatives – repeal of Section 52 CDPA  EU: Review of EU copyright rules Overview

17 General principles: What types of works does directive apply to? What is definition of orphan work? What are conditions to be fulfilled? Who are the beneficiaries of this directive? What are the limitations – ie what is the permitted use of orphan works? What are the boundaries of these limitations? The OW Directive (2012/28/EU) – General principles

18 The OW Directive – Types of works (Art. 1 (2) – (4)) -Print medium : “books, journals, newspapers, magazines or other writings” -Films and sound recordings: “cinematographic or audiovisual works and phonograms”, including those produced by public-service broadcasting organisations up to 31 December 2002 and contained in their archives -Publication nexus : “must be first published/broadcast in a Member State” -Copyright status: works “which are protected by copyright or related rights”

19 The OW Directive – Definition of an orphan work (Art. 2)  A work or a phonogram = orphan work if none of the rightholders in that work or phonogram is identified or, even if one or more of them is identified, none is located despite a diligent search for the rightholders having been carried out and recorded

20 The OW Directive – Conditions to be fulfilled by user (Art. 3)  Organisations “shall ensure that a diligent search is carried out in good faith” in respect of each work or other protected subject- matter by consulting the appropriate sources for the category of works …”  What is diligent search? See Annex which gives list of sources to be checked  Where?  In the MS of first publication / broadcast  MS of producer of cinematographic/audio-visual work  Sometimes, in MS where the organisation that made the work or phonogram publicly accessible with the consent of the rightholder (ie potentially non-EU works held in EU collections/archives)  The role of OHIM  Mutual recognition

21 The OW Directive – Beneficiaries (Art. 1(1)) Limitations and exceptions within this directive is only available  for certain uses  made by “publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments and museums, as well as by archives, film or audio heritage institutions and public-service broadcasting organisations”  established in the Member States  “in order to achieve aims related to their public-interest missions”

22 The OW Directive – Permitted uses (Art. 6)  MS to provide an exception or limitation to the right of reproduction and the right of making available to the public (Arts. 2/3 of Infosoc Directive)  Beneficiaries can do the following: Make it available to public Reproduce it for the purposes of digitisation, making available, indexing, cataloguing, preservation or restoration.

23 The OW Directive – Boundaries to the limitation (Art. 6)  The beneficiary organisations must use the work “in order to achieve aims related to their public-interest missions, in particular the preservation of, the restoration of, and the provision of cultural and educational access to, works and phonograms contained in their collection”  They can make money of such uses – but only for “the exclusive purpose of covering their costs of digitising orphan works and making them available to the public.”

24 The OW Directive – Compensation (Art. 6(5))  However, if the rightsholder turns up, and the orphan work status to the work ends, there must be “fair compensation” for the use that has been made  MS are free to determine the level of the compensation and how payment is organised.

25 The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ERR) Act 2013 The new s. 116A and 116B of the CDPA 1988  Orphan works licensing scheme  Wider scope in terms of types of works, permitted uses and beneficiaries  Commercial and non-commercial exploitation  Measure limited to national boundaries  (Voluntary) Extended Collective Licensing  collecting society which already represent a significant number of rights holders in relation to the works and uses covered by the proposed scheme  Opt-out rationale  Possible overlaps between ECL and orphan works

26 Why this is a current issue? On a practical note, are the proposed schemes helpful?  See a current mass digitisation project: “ Spare Rib: the new women's magazine An introduction to the project and our request for copyright permission ” (http://bl.sites.hubspot.com/spare-rib-introduction)http://bl.sites.hubspot.com/spare-rib-introduction BBC 4 coverage

27  Background  UK: Changes to exceptions – Modernising Copyright  UK: Orphan works (Orphan Works Directive and Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013)  UK: Other relevant initiatives – repeal of Section 52 CDPA etc  EU: Review of EU copyright rules Overview

28 Copyright environment for works of applied art/artistic works/designs ex ante Design Directive Cumulative protection - France (l’unite de l’art) Partial cumulative protection - Germany (higher individuality test) / UK (difficult categories/scope of protection severely limited ie ss. 51 and 52) Non-cumulative protection - Italy (separability/scindibilita criterion)

29 Effect of s. 52, CDPA: “artistic works” - exploited by an industrial process and marketed in the UK or elsewhere scope of protection curtailed copying for purposes of making articles allowed - 25 years from marketing Copyright (Industrial Process and Excluded Articles) (No. 2) Order industrial process = if an article is one of more than fifty articles Rationale: Articles in commerce should claim design protection Copyright denied to artistic works which are commercially exploited Why?

30 S. 74, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 S.52, CDPA repealed Impact Assessment: HMG admits that no consultation; but a company which makes “furniture design classics” claimed that it suffered EUR 250 mill per year due to copies, with significant loss in UK Increased profits to designers will be invested in innovation and contribute to economic growth Also to bring in line with EU law EU law EU Design Directive and Regulation CJEU decisions

31 Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs Article 17 A design protected by a design right registered in or in respect of a Member State in accordance with this Directive shall also be eligible for protection under the law of copyright of that State as from the date on which the design was created or fixed in any form. The extent to which, and the conditions under which, such a protection is conferred, including the level of originality required, shall be determined by each Member State. Recital (8) Whereas, in the absence of harmonisation of copyright law, it is important to establish the principle of cumulation of protection under specific registered design protection law and under copyright law, whilst leaving Member States free to establish the extent of copyright protection and the conditions under which such protection is conferred

32 Post-Directive CJEU jurisprudence Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA, Case C-168/09, 27 January Can national law (Italian) preclude copyright protection or render it unenforceable for a certain period for designs which entered the public domain before Directive enters into force? In relation to a transitional provision. Held: Article 17 of Directive 98/71/EC prohibits laws which exclude designs from copyright protection, merely because they are protected by a design right, and which entered the public domain before the Directive came into force - “although they meet all the requirements to be eligible for copyright protection.” Held: Article 17 also precludes laws which exclude designs from copyright protection for a substantial period of 10 years of completely, although the designs “meet all the requirements to be eligible for copyright protection”, just because the designs entered the public domain before the date of entry of Directive. Followed in Cassina SpA v Alivar Srl and Galliani Host Arredamenti Srl, Case C-198/10, 9th September 2011

33

34 Flos Arco Floor Lamp by Achille Castiglioni Designer: Achille CastiglioniAchille Castiglioni Manufacturer: FlosFlos Price: $2, Reproduction Arco Floor Lamp Castiglioni - Arch Lamp Item# Regular Price : $1, Our Price : $499.00

35 Le Corbusier decision (Cassina v High Tech S.r.l.), Court of Milan July 7, 2011 Court of Milan granted copyright protection to Le Corbusier furniture items, holding that design works are eligible for copyright protection even if they have never been registered under design law as long as the conditions for copyright protection are met, i.e., if said works have inherent creative and artistic value.

36 Flos / Arco decision Court of Milan, September 20, 2012 Court of Milan looked at the following factors in order to ascertain whether an industrial design work bears “artistic value” and is therefore eligible to copyright protection: a) any assessment in this respect must be carried out in an objective way by looking at the widespread appreciation of the design work in the cultural and institutional sector (e.g. critics, cultural institutions, museums, etc.), irrespective of the fact that it is of daily use; b) Flos provided sufficient proof of the consensus reached among cultural and institutional fields on the “Arco” lamp’s ability to represent the trends of the post-war Italian industrial design. c) Court gave relevance to the fact that the “Arco” lamp has been included in the collection of the New York Museum of Arts and Design for over ten years.

37 Panton Chair decision (Vitra Patente v High Tech Srl) Court of Milan, September 13, 2012 Court of Milan granted copyright protection to the “Panton Chair” by Verner Panton, produced by Vitra Patente A.G., against the slavish imitation of the same by High Tech S.r.l. The exhibition of the chair in exhibitions and museums was evidence of its artistic value.

38 BGH, 24 November 2013, I ZR 143/12 Birthday Train; unreported as yet In November 2013, the German Supreme Court, in a landmark decision concerning children’s toys, overturned its own jurisprudence to hold that the level of creativity required for works of applied art will be no higher than than required for works of fine art. This volte-face was primarily due, held the court, to the change in EU design legislation. This is unconvincing as the changes to EU and national laws were implemented in 2001 and 2004 respectively. Instead, it is submitted that the real reason for the change in German jurisprudence, which follows the changes made within UK copyright law in 2013 as well, was the EU’s line of reasoning in the Arco decision. The full impact of the German Supreme Court’s decision has yet to take effect, but it is to be presumed that Germany will reverse its policy of discrimination and adopt the full cumulative protection approach. German Supreme Court press release available here: bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&Sort=12288&nr=65848&linked=pm&Blankhttp://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi- bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&Sort=12288&nr=65848&linked=pm&Blank

39 Impact on UK/EU? - Economic issues Replica manufacturers - competition? pricing? Derivatives not possible? Impact assessment found that replicas are sold at between 8 and 35% of the cost charged by original producer Eg Eames chair £5065; v replica £699 The effect of repeal is that many consumers will not be able to obtain a product with the appearance they want. Is this a reason to curtail protection? Or is this a reason why the status quo should not be changed (although the original decision to limit protection was wrong?)

40 Impact on UK/Italy - Legal issues Aesthetic criteria re-introduced? Note wording of Article 17 - “The extent to which, and the conditions under which, such a protection is conferred, including the level of originality required, shall be determined by each Member State” Is l’unite de l’art only way forward? Cross refer to OHIM jurisprudence on “functionality”

41  Background  UK: Changes to exceptions – Modernising Copyright  UK: Orphan works (Orphan Works Directive and Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013)  UK: Other relevant initiatives – repeal of Section 52 CDPA etc  EU: Review of EU copyright rules Overview

42  History Communication on content in Digital Single Market, 2012 Green Paper on the online distribution of AV works 2011 Green Paper on copyright in the knowledge economy 2010 Consultation on Content Online 2009  Future Commission initiative April/ May 2014 Questionnaire Dec 2013 (deadline 5 th Feb 2014) L4E Nov 2013 Studies on implementation of Info Soc Directive  CJEU cases interpreting Info Soc Directive EU Background

43  Pledges on industry initiatives, stakeholder commitments and roadmaps for further actions, including: Cross-border portability of subscription services Improved availability of e-books across borders and across devices Easier licensing for music Enabling the identification of your work and rights online More heritage films online Freeing up TV footage archives through digitisation Improving identification and discoverability of audio-visual content online Licenses for Europe

44 80 Questions in the following areas Rights and the functioning of the Single Market Limitations and exceptions in the Single Market Private copying and reprography Fair remuneration of authors and performers Respect for rights – enforcement A single EU Copyright Title Other issues Consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules

45 Perhaps an open question to the panel and the audience – what are the areas of copyright which could be amended and why? UMA, Maria, Hugh do you want to discuss specific issues?

46 BLACA 9 th January 2014 Latest UK and EU Copyright Developments Thanks


Download ppt "BLACA 9 th January 2014 Latest UK and EU Copyright Developments Maria Frabboni Uma Suthersanen Hugh Jones Florian Koempel."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google