Intellectual Property Office (2016b)
|Intellectual Property Office (2016b)|
|Title:||Government Response to the further consultation and technical review on changes to Section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which permits the free public showing or playing of a film contained in a broadcast)|
|Author(s):||Intellectual Property Office|
|Citation:||Intellectual Property Office (2016), Government Response to the further consultation and technical review on changes to Section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which permits the free public showing or playing of a film contained in a broadcast).|
|Link(s):||Definitive , Open Access|
|Key Related Studies:|
|About the Data|
|Data Description:||List of responses to a survey sent by the Government to 10 organisations.|
|Data Type:||Primary data|
|Secondary Data Sources:|
|Data Collection Methods:|
|Data Analysis Methods:|
|Cross Country Study?:||No|
|Government or policy study?:||Yes|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:||
This paper is the Government’s Response to the further consultation and technical review on changes to Section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). Responses were received from 10 organisations (see Annex A). All responses support the Government’s policy of removing ‘film’ from Section 72. The changes will: a) Bring greater clarity to the law; b) Avoid the need for complex changes to the rest of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act; c) Enable rightsholders to bring enforcement action more easily; d) Lead to a more level playing field for those pubs and other organisations that take out legitimate television subscriptions. Some respondents highlighted that the subsection in the draft Regulations dealing with ‘communication to the public’ ran the risk of unintended consequences. The inclusion of this was merely intended as a clarification that the exception applies in respect of a broadcast, where that broadcast is communicated to the public for free, as held by the Courts in the FAPL litigation. The Government agrees that the clarification is not required in order to give effect to the interpretation of the Courts in the FAPL litigation. The position of Section 72 in respect of Sections 19 and 20 of the CDPA will remain as interpreted by the Courts.
Main Results of the Study
- The responses to the consultation were overwhelmingly supportive of the removal of film from the exception, with no dissenting opinions. Specifically, respondents welcomed the simplification that would be achieved. Several respondents felt that removing film had the advantage over previous options in that it would avoid practical difficulties, and the need to recognise “a new class of copyright work linked to ‘film’ which would need reconciliation across all the other provisions within the CDPA”.
- Respondents unanimously considered that the exception would bring consistency with EU law and caselaw, and was a simpler, clearer solution than that put forward in the 2015 consultation; save in relation to the inclusion of the phrase “communication to the public”. Several responses expressed concern with the proposal to amend Section 72(1) to refer to “communication to the public”. The Government had proposed this to clarify that the exception applies in respect of a broadcast where that broadcast is communicated to the public for free. However, some respondents expressed concerns that there would be unintended consequences of doing so. In particular: a) It would be unclear whether or not the exception applies only to linear broadcasting, or also to on-demand broadcasts; b) On-demand broadcasts were not the subject of consultation; c) Such a change is not required by the Court judgment which led to the current review of Section 72.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The Government intends to proceed to lay Regulations in Parliament, to remove Films from Section 72.
Coverage of Study
|Level of aggregation:||Organisations|
|Period of material under study:||2015|