Top

Published in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

25. United Kingdom

Author : Eleonora Rosati

Published in: Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Like all the other Member States of the EU, in general terms, the “acts permitted in relation to copyright works” under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the “CDPA”) follow the closed system of exceptions and limitations envisaged by relevant EU directives, notably Directive 2001/29 (the “InfoSoc Directive”). However, it should be noted at the outset that, while the InfoSoc Directive is “the” general EU copyright directive, EU legislature has adopted directives relating to specific subject matter, which also provide for sets of exceptions and limitations that are either optional or mandatory for EU Member States to transpose into their own legal systems.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Switzerland

Chapter III CDPA refers to “acts permitted in relation to copyright works.” For the avoidance of doubt, this report will consider the phrase “acts permitted in relation to copyright works” as synonymous with copyright ‘exceptions’, ‘limitations’, ‘exclusions’, and ‘defences’.

When the CDPA was enacted, UK legislature still enjoyed significant freedom from EU law constraints: the first copyright directive was in fact adopted in 1991 (Council Directive 91/250 of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ 1991 L 122, p. 42).

Article 6(2) of Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20; Article 10 of Directive 2006/115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28.

Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20, Article 6(1); Directive 2009/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16, Articles 5 and 6; Directive 2012/28 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works, OJ 2012 L 299, p. 5, Article 6. See also the recent proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market, COM(2016) 593 final, 2016/0280 (COD), contains three new mandatory exceptions at Articles 3 to 6.

Ibid, Recital 7.

CJEU, case C-510/10, DR and TV2 Danmark A/S v NCB – Nordisk Copyright Bureau, EU:C:2012:244, pt 35, referring to ECJ, case C-479/04, Laserdisken ApS v Kulturministeriet, EU:C:2006:549, pts 26 and 31–34.

The rights of communication and making available to the public are distinct and have different scope: “as follows from the wording of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, and in particular from the terms ‘any communication to the public of their works, … including the making available to the public’, the concept of ‘making available to the public’, also used in Article 3(2) of that directive, forms part of the wider ‘communication to the public’”: CJEU, case C-279/13, C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg, EU:C:2015:199, pt 24.

As regards exhaustion of the right of distribution, UK law follows the EU approach. With specific regard to digital copies of copyright works, also under UK law it is uncertain whether exhaustion is available as a general principle or only applies to digital copies of computer programs (CJEU, case C-128-11, UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp, EU:C:2012:407). See further E. Rosati, Online Copyright Exhaustion in a Post-Allposters World, JIPLP (2015)(9), p. 673.

Ibid, Recital 32 and Article 5(3)(o).

W.R. Cornish, D. Llewelyn and T. Aplin., Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed, Sweet&Maxwell 2014, §12.37.

P.B. Hugenholtz, Why the Copyright Directive is Unimportant, and Possibly Invalid, EIPR (2000)(11), p. 501. In the same sense, see M.C. Janssens The Issue of Exceptions: Reshaping the Keys to the Gates in the Territory of Literary, Musical and Artistic Creation. In Derclaye (ed.) Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright, Edward Elgar Publishing 2009, p. 332, and bibliography cited in it. For similar criticisms, expressed at the proposal stage, see M. Hart, The Proposed Directive for Copyright in the Information Society: Nice Rights, Shame about the Exceptions, EIPR (1998)(5), pp. 169–170.

Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10, Recital 15. For a discussion of the three-step test in the InfoSoc Directive, see R. Arnold and E. Rosati, Are national courts the addressees of the InfoSoc three-step test?, JIPLP (2015)(10), pp. 742–744.

Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2006) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228849/0118404830.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017.

Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (2011) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32563/ipreview-finalreport.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017.

Section 62 applies to buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. It provides that copyright in such works is not infringed by: making a graphic work representing it; making a photograph or film of it; or making a broadcast of a visual image of it. Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2006) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228849/0118404830.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, Recommendation 8; Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (2011) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32563/ipreview-finalreport.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, §§5.27–5.31.

Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2006) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228849/0118404830.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, Recommendation 12; Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (2011) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32563/ipreview-finalreport.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, §5.32.

Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2006) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228849/0118404830.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, Recommendation 2 (recommending amendments to sections 35 and 36 CDPA to cover distance learning and interactive whiteboards); Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (2011) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32563/ipreview-finalreport.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017., §5.3.

Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2006) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228849/0118404830.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, Recommendations 10a and 10b; Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (2011) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32563/ipreview-finalreport.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, Recommendation 5.

Doubts regarding the lawfulness of the new exception for personal copies for private use had been also expressed prior to the application for judicial review: see A. Cameron, Copyright Exceptions for the Digital Age: New Rights of Private Copying, Parody and Quotation, JIPLP (2014)(12), p. 1003; K. Grisse and S. Koroch, The British Private Copying Exception and its Compatibility with the Information Society Directive, JIPLP (2015)(7), pp. 566–569.

British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and Others v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 1723 (Admin).

However InfoSoc Directive, Recital 35 provides that “[i]n certain situations where the prejudice to the rightholder would be minimal, no obligation for payment may arise.” This means that “the notion and level of fair compensation are linked to the harm resulting for the author from the reproduction of his protected work without his authorisation. From that perspective, fair compensation must be regarded as recompense for the harm suffered by that author”: CJEU, case C-572/13, Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL, EU:C:2015:750, pt 36, referring to CJEU, case C-467/08, Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE), EU:C:2010:620, pt 37. In the same sense, see also CJEU, case C-463/12, Copydan Båndkopi v Nokia Danmark A/S, EU:C:2015:144, pt 65.

Article L 122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code (Code de la propriété intellectuelle, consolidated version as to 17 March 2017).

R. Arnold and E. Rosati, Are National Courts the Addressees of the InfoSoc Three-Step Test?, JIPLP (2015)(10), p. 743, citing DTI, Consultation paper on implementation (August 2002), 11–12, as reported in W.R. Cornish et al., Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed, Sweet&Maxwell 2014, §12.37. See also M. Hart and S. Holmes, Implementation of the Copyright Directive in the United Kingdom, EIPR (2004)(6), p. 255.

England and Wales Cricket Board Limited and Others v Tixdaq Limited and Another [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch), pt 89.

Ibid, pt 88.

Ibid, pts 88–92.

Services v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2011) [2011] EWHC 2892 (Ch), pt 113.

England and Wales Cricket Board Limited and Others v Tixdaq Limited and Another [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch), pt 91.

Ibid, pt 92.

A preliminary checklist was published in E. Rosati, Am I Covered by that UK Copyright Exception? Here’s my Checklist, The IPKat, http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2017/04/am-i-covered-by-that-uk-copyright.html. Accessed 15 April 2017.

One of the principal decisions to consider will be CJEU, case C-145/10, Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others, EU:C:2011:798, concerning interpretation of Article 5(3)(d) of the InfoSoc Directive. For a discussion of the international and EU quotation exceptions, see E. Rosati, Neighbouring Rights for Press Publishers: Are National and (Possible) EU Initiatives Lawful?, IIC (2016)(5) 47(5), pp. 588–591.

For doubts concerning the compatibility with EU law of the pre-2014 UK disability exceptions, see E. Rosati, Copyright in the EU: In Search of (In)Flexibilities, JIPLP (2014)(7), pp. 594–596.

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM/2015/0192 final (2015), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1447773803386&uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0192. Accessed 15 April 2017.

The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding BV and Others [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch); The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding BV and Others [2011] EWCA Civ 890.

Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others, C-360/13, EU:C:2014:1195.

Public Relations Consultants Association Limited (Appellant) v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited and Others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 18.

CJEU, case C-527/15, Stichting Brein v Jack Frederik Wullems, also trading under the name Filmspeler, EU:C:2017:300, pts 59–70.

L. Bently and B. Sherman, Intellectual Property Law, 4^th ed, Oxford University Press 2014, pp. 224–226.

W.R. Cornish, D. Llewelyn and T. Aplin, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed, Sweet&Maxwell 2014, p. 494.

Per Lord Denning MR, Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84, pt 94.

L. Bently and B. Sherman, Intellectual Property Law, 4^th ed, Oxford University Press 2014, p. 210; N. Caddick, G. Davies and G. Harbottle, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 17^th ed Sweet&Maxwell, London, §9.52.

But see, critically, T. Aplin and J. Davies, Intellectual Property Law – Text, Cases, and Materials, 3^rd ed, Oxford University Press 2017, §4.3.2.3., referring to Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton UK Television [1999] 1 WLR 605.

Time Warner Entertainment Ltd v Channel 4 Television Corporation Plc [1994] EMLR 1.

As clarified by section 178 CDPA, “‘sufficient acknowledgement’ means an acknowledgement identifying the work in question by its title or other description, and identifying the author.” See also Express Newspaper Plc v News (UK) Ltd [1990] FSR 359, pt 367.

The Right Honourable Paddy Ashdown, MP PC v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142.

England and Wales Cricket Board Limited and Others v Tixdaq Limited and Another [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch), pts 88–92.

Ibid, pt 68.

Ibid, pt 70.

Ibid, pt 74.

Ibid, pt 81.

Ibid, pt 82.

Ibid, pt 106.

Ibid, pt 128.

Ibid, pt 129.

Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland and Others [2001] Ch 143.

Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84.

L. Bently and B. Sherman, Intellectual Property Law, 4^th ed, Oxford University Press 2014, p. 224. See also R. Arnold and E. Rosati, Are National Courts the Addressees of the InfoSoc Three-Step Test?, JIPLP (2015)(10), p. 748; S. Jacques, Are the New ‘Fair Dealing’ Provisions an Improvement on the Previous UK Law, and Why?, JIPLP (2015)(9), p. 703.

The Right Honourable Paddy Ashdown, MP PC v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142, pt 70.

HM Government, The Government Response to the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (2011), http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140603093549/http:/www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresponse-full.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, p. 8.

HM Government, Consultation on Copyright (2011), http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140603093549/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, §7.249.

HM Government, Modernising Copyright: A Modern, Robust and Flexible Framework. Government Response to Consultation on Copyright Exceptions and Clarifying Copyright Law (2012), http://www.allpartywritersgroup.co.uk/Documents/PDF/Modernising-copyright.aspx. Accessed 15 April 2017, p. 19.

A. Dietz, The Artist’s Right of Integrity under Copyright Law – A Comparative Approach, IIC (1994)25, p. 179.

Code de la propriété intellectuelle, consolidated version as to 17 March 2017), Article L121-1.

E. Adeney, The Moral Rights of Authors and Performers. An International and Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press 2006, p. 406.

See J. Griffiths, Not Such a ‘Timid Thing’: The United Kingdom’s Integrity Right and Freedom of Expression. In Griffiths and Suthersanen (eds), Copyright and Free Speech, Oxford University Press 2005, pp. 211–244, explaining that omission of a defence based on freedom of expression from the drafting of section 80 CDPA was justified on fear of excessive complexity of the law.

Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland and Others [2000] EWCA Civ 37, pt 66. According to Mance LJ, instead, it would not be possible to categorize the possible scenarios that would trigger section 171(3): see pt 83.

In this sense, Laddie et al., The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs, 4^th ed, LexisNexis 2011, §21.22.

HM Government, Technical Review of Draft Legislation on Copyright Exceptions: Government Response (2014), http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140603093549/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/response-copyright-techreview.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, p. 9.

HM Government, Copyright Exception for Parody – Impact Assessment (2014), http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140603093549/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ia-exception-parody.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, p. 1.

In this sense, R. Arnold and E. Rosati, Are National Courts the Addressees of the InfoSoc Three-Step Test?, JIPLP (2015)(10).

J. Griffiths, Fair Dealing after Deckmyn: The United Kingdom’s Defence for Caricature, Parody and Pastiche. In Richardson and Ricketson (eds) Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment, Edward Elgar 2017, p. 69, observing that “[t]he minimalistic drafting of section 30A reflects the text of Article 5(3)(k) of the [InfoSoc] Directive. However, it also recognizes the realities of cultural practice. Parodists do not generally adapt unpublished works, and parodies are rarely accompanied by explicit acknowledgment of source” (footnote omitted).

UK Intellectual Property Office, Exceptions to Copyright: Guidance for Creators and Copyright Owners (2014), https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448274/Exceptions_to_copyright_-_Guidance_for_creators_and_copyright_owners.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, p. 5.

Ibid, p. 6.

N. Caddick, G. Davies and G. Harbottle, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 17^th ed Sweet&Maxwell, London 2016, §9.63.

Speaking of a “droit de parodie,” see M. Vivant and J-M. Bruguière, Droit d’Auteur et Droit Visins, 3rd ed, Dalloz 2016, §651, also highlighting that this right is not limitless.

CJEU, case C-201/13, Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others, EU:C:2014:2132.

Ibid, pt 32. For discussion of how such ‘legitimate interest’ may be qualified, see E. Rosati, Just a Laughing Matter? Why the Decision in Deckmyn is Broader than Parody, CMLRev (2015)(52), pp. 523–528.

J. Griffiths, Not Such a ‘Timid Thing’: The United Kingdom’s Integrity Right and Freedom of Expression. In Griffiths and Suthersanen (eds), Copyright and Free Speech, Oxford University Press 2005, p. 223. But see N. Caddick, G. Davies and G. Harbottle, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 17^th ed Sweet&Maxwell, London 2016, §11.51, suggesting instead a narrow reading of the potential of the right of integrity in relation to caricatures, parodies and pastiches.

This is the proposal that the Wittem Group advanced with its model European copyright code: Wittem Group, The Wittem Project – European copyright code (2008), http://copyrightcode.eu/Wittem_European_copyright_code_21%20april%202010.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017, Article 5(5).

In this sense see also R. Arnold, L. A. F. Bently, E. Derclaye and G. B. Dinwoodie, The Legal Consequences of Brexit through the Lens of IP Law, University of Cambridge – Faculty of Law – Legal Studies Research Paper Series 21/2017, p. 7.

Sony/ATV Music PublishingLLC & Another v WPMC Ltd & Another [2015] EWHC 1853 (Ch).

Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, 510 US 569.

P.N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, HarvLRev (1989)(103), pp. 1111–1112.

Sony/ATV Music PublishingLLC & Another v WPMC Ltd & Another [2015] EWHC 1853 (Ch), pt 100.

Protection of copyright has been recognized as a fundamental – yet not limitless – right: see ECtHR, Ashby Donald and Others v France [2013] 287; ECtHR, Frederick Neij and Another v Sweden [2013] 76 (in relation to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights); CJEU, case C-277/10, Martin Luksan v Petrus van der Let, EU:C:2012:65; CJEU, case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH, EU:C:2013:781; CJEU, case C-160/15, GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, EU:C:2016:644, pt 31 (in relation to Articles 11, 16 and 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

The CJEU itself has referred to exceptions as users’ rights in case C-117/13, Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG, EU:C:2014:2196, pt 31.

Title: United Kingdom
Author: Eleonora Rosati
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71418-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-71419-6

Copyright Year: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71419-6_25