Government unveils plans to reshape UK's copyright law
The UK government has made a commitment to reforming the current copyright system, which is poised to have an impact on professional photographers' dealings with consumers
The government’s goals:
- To simplify the current copyright system, including licensing practices by asking rights holders to broaden their terms of use. For example, a wedding photographer should allow a couple to share their images with their friends online.
- To allow non-commercial use by individuals without the need to ask permission for that use (third party organisations such as charities, as well as blog receiving payments via advertising, would still need a license).
- To reshape the enforcement strategy by making it less ‘muscular’.
- To educate the population on the consequences of infringement both on consumers and rights holders.
- To allow an organisation to act as a collective licensing agency, which will license all works in a particular category (music, film, photography, etc.)
Following months of consultations and more than 140 responses from the creative industries, the Intellectual Property Office, under the impulsion of David Lammy, has unveiled its plan to reform the UK’s copyright system.
BJP was the only photography publication to
participate in the consultation, submitting a report of the inadequacies of the current copyright system to protect photographers’ work.
BJP’s response can be found on the IPO website here (PDF file).
Now, the UK government says it ‘is prepared to change UK law if needed, or to build consensus for change in international copyright frameworks,’ it says in the latest IPO report, dubbed
© the way ahead.
The report draws on previous governmental reviews including Digital Britain and the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. The call for action comes as the internet has made it easier for consumers to access and distribute copyrighted works. ‘This has brought to the fore existing tensions between incentives for authors, publishers and investors and the desire for access to works by a wide range of users,’ the report reads.
The government’s consultation also showed that many authors, such as photographers, ‘felt the balance of power with publishers was not in their favour and that they gave too much control of their work to others. This was a particular issue for photographers,’ it says.
For consumers of copyrighted works, the consultation revealed that people ‘do not understand why they should have to pay for using works in the “cut and paste” world in which we live.’
In effect, the IPO believes that the current copyright system is too complex for users. ‘Much of this complexity can be addressed by rights holders and how they administer their rights,’ it says. The IPO also considers that ‘making non-commercial use less onerous for consumers, for example by removing the need to seek permission and make payment for personal use of individual copyright works, would help.’ However, it adds, fair compensation for rights holders would be required.
One of the government’s proposals is also to make copyright licensing simpler. ‘Having works or licences available legitimately reduces the incentive to infringe,’ the IPO says. ‘However, systems for licensing are complex, time-consuming to access and incomplete. Copyright is automatic and many works (such as photographs) do not incorporate details of their creator or rights holder. As a result, it is hard to get permission to use works. A user may find it impossible to identify the owner of a work,’ the report says. ‘Making licensing easier benefits all who are currently involved and has potential to bring in new users of works as well.’
It adds that burdensome licensing also harms rights holders. ‘Complex licensing procedures deter some commercial users and thus rights holders’ potential revenue from licensing to those users is lost. In fact, a lack of legitimate services enabling content to be accessed legally at the right price in a way that consumers want arguably encourages copyright infringement.’
The government also believes that enforcement of rights could help – up to a point. ‘Enforcement is often viewed by rights holders as the solution to infringement which should be utilised more effectively. Views from those outside of the creative industry tend to be mixed. There is a concern that an over-reliance on enforcement will stifle innovation within the creative industries. Some consumers suggested that rights holders were seeking unrealistic returns, i.e. that prices were too high relative to other goods or services.’
It adds that the muscular language of enforcement emphasising theft is unhelpful and problematic. ‘It would be useful for everyone to recognise that a loyal customer base is alienated when the distinction between criminal liability and civil infringement is not made clear,’ the IPO says. ‘The government wasn’t to see the copyright system respected, but to achieve this, the system has to be respectable. It must be seen to benefit all parties, rather than some at the expense of others.’
The government calls on rights holders to offer works with broader terms of use, to accommodate consumers’ wishes to share photos with friends online, for example.
It will also look to implement ‘a system of extended collective licensing that will enable a collecting society or other organisation with significant representation in a particular category of right to apply for permission from the government to license all works in that category, including on behalf of rights holders who have not specifically signed up to that society or organisation.’
The IPO has also addressed the Orphan Works issue in its recent paper.
Read BJP's full report here.
dfsfs
