Copying material for private use: is it legal?

The UK Human Rights Blog reports on the very important copyright/administrative law case,  British Academy of Songwriters, Composers And Authors & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation And Skills [2015] EWHC 1723 (Admin) (19 June 2015)*, the work of a court and a judge rarely if ever before engaged on intellectual property issues. Green J held that the government was wrong to create a permitted act of private copying, by the Copyright and Rights in Performance (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2361) which inserted new section 28B into the increasingly-unrecognisable Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The problem lies in the directive that the government has to comply with in doing this, Directive 2001/29, popularly known as the Information Society directive, Art. 5 of which provides (in pertinent part):

2. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations for the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:

…

(b) in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject-matter concerned;

...




5. The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.

The government took the view that there was no need to provide for any compensation for rights holders, for the simple reason that there was no loss to compensate. The price had been set (and the rightholder remunerated) on the assumption that these private copies would be made. The permitted copying was of a copy which the individual already owned: it was nothing more than format-shifting.

The government had concluded that little or no harm would be caused to the rightholder. The judge took the view that there was not enough evidence for them to reach this conclusion. While he rejected the applicants' other contentions, on this point he found in their favour, and back to the drawing board goes the government.

Does this make sense? It seems to be predicated on the "normal exploitation" including selling new formats instead of allowing format-shifting. Of course, once the private copying snowball starts to roll there are sure to be copies being made for friends and family, but that doesn't seem to me to be reason to reject a limited private copying permitted act (or "exception" as the Directive will call it). The fact that such copying might take place is quite outside the scope of the permitted act, and doesn't affect the case for permitting what is permitted. Format-shifting should be a neutral event, and the copyright owner should not be allowed to think that his or her legitimate interests or the normal exploitation of the work extend to format-shifting. No-one in the real world imagines that it does, and the law must acknowledge this.

'via Blog this'
*You may also like to read the summary provided by the ICLR: [2015] WLR(D) 268. In many ways it is preferable to the 318-paragraph, 107-page, blockbuster which is Green J's judgment.

Copyright: new permitted acts

Two new statutory instruments came into operation on 1 October 2014, creating new permitted acts under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which is now so heavily amended that demands for a complete new codification and root-and-branch reform of copyright law are getting louder and louder (recently being added to in Mr Justice Arnold’s Herchel Smith lecture). They have exciting (that’s irony, incidentally), but admirably descriptive, titles: the first is the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Quotation and Parody) Regulations 2014 (SI no 2356). The words in brackets in the title of the second (SI no 2361) are ‘(Personal Copies for Private Use)’. Although they do similar jobs, they work in subtly different ways, and it is yet to be seen whether the private copying regulations comply with the relevant EU directive (the so-called information society directive) and therefore whether they are legal: interested parties are considering their position and a legal challenge may follow.

There are already many permitted acts, often inaccurately referred to as ‘exceptions’, in UK copyright law. Several of them fall under the general heading ‘fair dealing’, creating the impression that perhaps they are similar to the ‘fair use’ exception in US copyright law. Far from it: whereas ‘fair use’ is a powerful and widely-usable ‘get out of jail free’ card, the UK law’s notion of ‘fair dealing’ is inherently more limited and restricted to certain specific activities. Fair dealing must be for private study, non-commercial research, ‘criticism and review’ (must it be simultaneously for both?) or reporting current events. Recent grafts onto this limb of the Act (Chapter III of Part 1) deal with making versions of certain works adapted to the requirements of visually-impaired people. Now they are joined by provisions allowing parodies and quotations, provided they amount to r dealing.

How do you know what amounts to fair dealing? First, it is important to note that it is not the same as fair use. When the law uses a different word, it is safe to assume that it intends to say something different. One might argue that it is fair use, for example, to show a film to a small invited audience who do not pay for the privilege, but perhaps make a donation to charity. The charitable aspect immediately reveals possible arguments that the use of the film is fair: the promoter is not making a profit from the activity. But that is not the question we have to answer under our law: we have to ask whether it amounts to fair dealing. Has it interfered with the normal exploitation of the copyright by its owner? Has it deprived the owner of the opportunity to earn remuneration from the activity? It is perfectly possible that the owner would, had they been asked, have given permission to show the film in exchange for a payment which they would themselves donate to charity – paying the money straight to charity effectively makes the decision for the copyright owner that a particular charity will benefit from a showing of the film, and whether it might be classified as ‘fair use’ it is not ‘fair dealing’. The English courts have developed tests for fair dealing, asking whether the act complained of adversely affects the market for the work, and in appropriate cases whether the amount of the work used is reasonable and appropriate. The law tries to strike a balance between the interests of the copyright owner and users of the copyright work.

The first of the new fair dealing provisions permits acts done for purposes of parody, caricature or pastiche. The three expressions were not previously known to UK copyright law, but a recent Court of Justice decision, in Case C-??/???, Deckmyn, tells us (making unfortunate use of the word ‘original’, in a different sense from its normal copyright sense) that a parody must ‘fulfil a critical purpose; … display humorous traits; seek to ridicule the original work; and not borrow a greater number of formal elements from the original work than is strictly necessary in order to produce the parody’. So parody is concerned with poking fun at (or what in my childhood we would have called ‘macking gam’ of) a work rather than its creator.

The UK Intellectual Property Office has published guidance on the new regulations in which it states:

In broad terms: parody imitates a work for humorous or satirical effect. It evokes an existing work while being noticeably different from it. Pastiche is musical or other composition made up of selections from various sources or one that imitates the style of another artist or period. A caricature portrays its subject in a simplified or exaggerated way, which may be insulting or complimentary and may serve a political purpose or be solely for entertainment.

The Hargreaves Review concluded that the uncertainty about whether parody, caricature or pastiche required the copyright owner’s permission was restricting the activity of creative people and businesses. But there was little uncertainty: under the law as it stood then, these activities required the copyright owner’s consent if the whole or a substantial part of a work were taken. If the parody did not take enough of a work to amount to infringement, there would be no infringement. Why should a parody ever take a substantial part of a copyright work? If the parodist is doing their job properly, the parody will put the reader, listener or viewer in mind of the work being parodied but without taking anything from it in a way that might constitute and infringement.

The scope of the exception will depend to a great extent on the interpretation placed on certain expressions by the courts – the Regulations have done little to create legal certainty. In particular, the judges’ view of what amounts to ‘fair dealing’ and how they balance the interests of the copyright owner and the user. The wording of the provision does not expressly exclude commercial use, so one interesting matter will be the extent to which the courts permit commercial activities under this head: if the use deprives the copyright owner of income, it is unlikely to be treated as fair dealing.

Quoting from a copyright work is permitted provided a number of conditions are met. First, the work must have been made available to the public. The use of the quotation must amount to fair dealing with the work, the extent of the quotation must be no more than is necessary for the specific purpose for which it is used, and the quotation must be accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. The last requirement, which reflects conditions attached to other fair dealing uses and for which the courts have developed detailed rules, will not apply if ‘impossible for reasons of impracticality or otherwise’. To treat something which is merely impracticable as an impossibility stretches the point: this is a new meaning of the word ‘impossible’, perhaps. At least the ‘otherwise’ bit is vague enough that it is qualified by the ‘impossible’.

The rule about quotations from a performance or sound recording (in the modern world, one of the most important areas for quotation) is much the same, but there is no ‘sufficient acknowledgement’ requirement.

Private copying by an individual is now permitted provided that they have lawfully and permanently acquired the copy from which the copy is made. The new copy must not be made for commercial ends – which surely hardly needs to be stated expressly, as it would not be a private copy if it were. Private copies of computer programs will not be permitted under this provision.

The new private copying provisions have been controversial. The relevant EU directive stipulates that there must be a mechanism for compensating the copyright owner in any system for private copying introduced by a Member State. A parliamentary committee warned earlier this year that the UK might be in breach of its treaty obligations if it did not include such a mechanism, but the government after further reflection went ahead without one, claiming it is unnecessary. It relies on the fact that the directive says no mechanism is needed if the harm done to rights owners would be ‘minimal’. The government seems to be taking an optimistic view of how the new permitted act might work – and UK Music, claiming that musicians will lose £58 million in revenue, is considering whether to launch a legal challenge to the new legislation.

'New exceptions to copyright reflect digital age'

A number of trendy 'exceptions to copyright', additional fall-out from the Hargreaves Review, come into force today, as this Press release from the IPO (now in fact from Big Brother's GOV.UK site, which smacks of everything a Conservative or Liberal government, let alone a coalition of the two, should stand for) reminds us. To my mind it is inaccurate to call them exceptions to copyright: the Act calls them 'permitted acts', and the government should be consistent. The trouble is that there are too few lawyers among our lawmakers these days: professional politicians who have never worked in the real world deal in simple concepts (and probably struggle with more than 140 characters), not nuanced language.


The 'exceptions' do not affect the subsistence of copyright, just its enforceability: they provide defences rather than creating holes in the fabric of copyright, which remains omnivorous. It's a way of rearranging the deckchairs when the real problem is that the ship is sinking under the weight of mundane, not-original-in-the-more-appropriate-sense-of-the-word, copyright 'works'. It hits the wrong target: making 'exceptions' (especially if you wrongly apply that label to them) creates false expectations about how copyright works, especially when they are the product of special pleading.


Still, we all have to know about them (unless your interest in copyright law is limited to passing an examination in the next few days, in which case you probably need to know only the law as it stood on or about 14 February). The new regulations, which you can read by following the links, are:

• Copyright and Rights in Performances (Disability) Regulations 2014
• Copyright and Rights in Performances (Research, Education, Libraries and Archives) Regulations 2014
• Copyright (Public Administration) Regulations 2014

The Patent Office (I will continue to use its proper name) has published a series of 8 targeted guides
about what the changes mean for groups including teachers, researchers,
librarians, disability groups, artists, museums and consumers. Given that they can surely have no value in legal proceedings, and certainly do not constitute legal advice, I wish they would stop wasting public funds (even if it is not taxpayers' money) like this. It would be far, far better if they were in some way to subsidise the small businesses that need advice on these matters but cannot readily afford it (though no doubt they find it possible to afford many other less essential goods and services).


Further changes, concerning private copying and parody and quotation, remain stalled in the legislative process: a small relief, though they are only likely to be delayed, not lost.

New copyright regulations coming next year

The government has published a statement  giving details of the changes to copyright law that will come into effect in the first half of next year, mostly concerning exceptions to protection (permitted acts, as the government should call them, to be consistent with the scheme of the legislation). It mentions 'relatively small but important' changes, which will remove 'up to' 45 pages of unnecessary rules and regulations from the statute book. Unnecessary? I find it impossible to understand how legislation can be regarded as 'unnecessary'. Undesirable, obsolete, unwanted, unduly complicated, perhaps, but never unnecessary.

The changes, of course, are inspired by the Hargreaves Review, which seems to have inspired more nonsense every time I look at it. Hargreaves it was who proposed new permitted acts to enable parodists to ply their trade without fear of being sued for infringement - as if good parody needs such a privilege, and as if it did not amount to removing a perfectly legitimate revenue stream for the copyright owner. The problem is that what passes for 'creativity' these days is less about making something pretty much from scratch (of course nothing is ever completely from scratch) but reusing and adapting what others have already created. Soon there won't be anything original to be found - perhaps that will remove the need to modernise copyright law.

The problem isn't that copyright works can't be reused, the problem is that too much is protected by copyright to begin with, and it would be far more constructive to raise the threshold for protection by making the originality requirement a bit more demanding - to require true originality, rather than mere independent creation. But that's another story.

In addition to the parody thing, the legislation will make some useful changes to Chapter III of Part 1 of the much-hacked-about Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The existing permitted act for archiving and preserving will be applied to all types of media, and to museums and galleries as well as libraries and archives. There will be new rights to copy material for private use and to conduct data analysis for non-commercial research. There will also be a new permitted act to quote copyright-protected content for purposes extending beyond criticism, review or news reporting.

The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills claims that businesses stand to save more than £25 million as a result of the planned changes to copyright exceptions, which is the sort of magical figure that I cannot take without a huge pinch of salt. In the audit society, everything has to be measured and costed, and Hargreaves stressed that policy in this area must be evidence-based, but I find it hard to see how figures like this can possibly be regarded as evidence. I don't think they would satisfy any legal test by which evidence is judged. No, the fact surely is that it suits the government to encourage the sort of ripping-off that can be cloaked with the title 'parody', because it's trendy and looks as if it amounts to modernisation.

At the same time, the government is legislating to support the idea of regulating the conduct of collecting societies by means of Codes. The idea is that the collecting societies should regulate their own activities with voluntary codes, but if this does not work the Government is giving itself powers to intervene.