Lecture 2 – Copyright, Databases, Designs, Semiconductors Topographies
Today we will deal with:
1. Some issues in copyright we’ve not looked at yet,
2. Database rights (sui generis) – rights which are over and above those which may exist under
copyright law and database rights and act differently from copyright law and protect a
different thing.,
3. Designs (the main topic - both registered and unregistered types),
4. Semiconductor topography regulations.
Copyright issues
1. Interface with design rights (formerly sections 51 to 53),
Involves the question of the interface between artistic copyright and design right. In the last
20 years, the courts have developed a considerable amount of specification about what will
be protected under artistic copyright and what will be protected as design right. Broadly
speaking, if the creator intends their work to be a work of art, it will then be covered by artistic
copyright. But if the creator intends to be prettifying or making a nice design or appearance
to an industrial and a mass-produced item that has another functional purpose, then the
courts will regard that as being covered only by design rights. So the interpretation of the
court really is the thing that has made the distinction between artistic copyright the one hand
and where that can be enforced and design right on the other.
2. Artists resale rights,
These rights are relatively recent. They've only really been in existence as enforceable rights
since January 2012. Broadly speaking, Artists of original works of art, including paintings,
engravings, sculptures and ceramics to a royalty each time one of their works is resold through
an auction house or art market professional.
There are a number of exemptions. The most important exemption is where a work was
directly bought from an artist and is being resold for 10000 euros or less and had been held
as stock for a period not exceeding three years. There are also exemptions for sales between
private individuals without the use of an auction house or art market professional. There are
further exemptions for certain public and non-profit making organisation such as museums.
But broadly speaking, the royalties which are payable are based on the resale price. It starts
at four percent, up to the resale price of 50000 euros. Then over that, there is a decreasing
scale so that over half a million euros, it decreases to 2.25 percent.
3. Reviews of IP law (Gowers, Hargreaves, etc.)
Not just copyright, but all of the other rights as well. In recent years, the first review is the
Gower's review which took place in 2006. This was to see principally whether or not
intellectual property laws in the UK were functioning properly and fit for purpose. There were
a large number of recommendations which were made.
, What Gower's did was to look to see whether the existing protections were fit for purpose.
He made various recommendations, such as that educational provision should be broadened
to include distance learning and various other technological advances in education.
GAO has also recommended that the length protection on sound recordings and performance
rights should not be extended beyond the existing 50 years. Garras suggested that there could
be a number of changes to making copies for certain purposes, one of them was called format
shifting to enable works that were published in one form to be republished without any
copyright infringement penalties, in another form to make them more useful for the people
for whom they are directed so that, for example, you could take a work that was a printed
work, a book, and convert that into Braille. That's called format shifting.
Another recommendation was to create an exemption to copyright for the purposes of
caricature, parody and pastiche. And a further recommendation was to introduce provisions
for what are called orphan works, which really means works in which the ownership of the
original copyright or the identity of the owner can't be traced. That would usually stop a
person from being able to make any copies of these works for other purposes. But there is
now an exemption which is in force. Generally, the other recommendations were to enable
businesses to make better use of copyright material and other intellectual property materials.
In 2011, the Hargreaves report was introduced, and this pointed out that intellectual property
is extremely important for economic and social growth. It also emphasised that because
technology is developing very fast, the intellectual property framework was falling behind and
would have to adapt quickly to the challenges of new technologies. In this regard, evidence
of technological change should drive policy. In particular, there were recommendations in
regard to the creation of an effective digital copyright licencing system, particularly where
it's impossible to ascertain or contact the original author. Again, this deals with or orphan
works.
There needed to be an approach to the exceptions in copyright, which are under fair use to
encourage these to be extended for the creative industries. There were some
recommendations made in regard to patents and generally, Hargreaves suggested that the
public should be educated on what they should and should not be doing so as to prevent
wholesale ripping of materials in music from CD’s and Internet sources, and to introduce a
better system for enforcement and governments of intellectual property, which reflected the
changes in technology and in the markets.
4. Brexit and the new EU Directive on copyright
Britain has left the EU and as a result, we are not going to be making any changes to the UK
intellectual property relating to copyright in line with the new EU directive which was aimed
at producing a single harmonised system of copyright across the European Union and
enhancing a number of rights. But that does mean that there will be a difference in regime
between copyright in the United Kingdom and copyright in the EU from April this year
onwards. That is important if companies are doing business with European partners because
the regimes will be different.
Broadly speaking, the EU directive intended to create better ways of dealing with the
dissemination of copyright material and its use in education, research and the preservation of
cultural heritage. It also wanted to enable easier cross-border and online access to copyright
materials for EU citizens and to create fairer rules for the functioning of copyright
