"IP and Other Regulations" by Mark Lemley

Only a short article, an introduction to a set of conference papers, but for anyone interested in the justification for, and theoretical basis of, intellectual property, IP and Other Regulations by Mark A. Lemley is a great read, and contains several pointers to more detailed discussions of the same topic.

Another Chinese clone, this time with a retro feel

Automotive news reports that Mercedes G-Wagen is the latest victim in China's clone wars. At least the Evoque is a new design - it seems strange to go back to such an old vehicle as the G-Wagen, which I remember driving as a battle-bus in Enfield North in the 1987 general election. Could it really have been so long ago? It had a turning circle comparable to that of an oil tanker.

JLR gave up on the Evoque copy as a bad job, noting that there was nothing in Chinese law which would help them. Mercedes, presumably, have less ground for complaint because the have to assume that even if there ever had been any rights in the design, they would have expired by now. Unless they could rely on copyright, of course, but that is an unreliable way to protect designs of anything, but especially motor vehicles, and particularly functional-looking ones.

This time the copyist is Beijing Automotive, which is where the story becomes complicated - they are Mercedes's local joint venture partner in China. Imitation may be the highest form of flattery, but it doesn't seem that Mercedes see it that way, and the problem is as much a political one as a legal one.

 

NIPC Law: Damages for Infringement of Database Rights

Damages for Infringement of Database Rights is the latest posting by my friend Jane Lambert on her excellent NIPC law blog - essential reading about an apparently minor intellectual property right which seems to become more important every time we hear about it.

Reposting from NIPC Law: Damages for Infringement of Database Rights: Inter...

NIPC Law: Damages for Infringement of Database Rights: Inter...: Jane Lambert The first claimant.  Intercity Telecom Limited ( "Intercity" ) , is one of the largest independent com...

Right to repair a four-wheeled computer

According to this story in WIRED (hat-tip to Warwick Rothnie for posting it on Facebook) John Deere and General Motors are trying to change the very idea of ownership, of tractors and cars at any rate. Actually, personal leasing plans in the motor sector (and, no doubt, similar arrangements in the agricultural machinery sector) have already years ago changed the ownership equation, but in a rather different and direct way than what is described here.

The simple fact is that, because vehicles rely increasingly on software to operate them, the owner of the hardware is beholden to the owner of the copyright in the software running on it. As with computers, so with tractors and cars. To characterise this as the manufacturer retaining ownership of the hardware is at best hyperbole, at worst downright wrong. But it nevertheless appears to pose problems for owners in the USA.

Would it happen here? I think not. First, an owner deprived of the ability to repair his or her car or tractor (or anything else) would be able to refer to the House of Lords decision in that great case, British Leyland Motor Corp & Ors v Armstrong Patents Company Ltd & Ors [1986] UKHL 7 (27 February 1986) where their Lordships (or at least a majority of them) held that the owner of a motor car had the right to repair it as economically as possible, and that to use intellectual property rights to thwart the owner was a derogation from grant which the courts would refuse to uphold. And since 1986, the software directive has introduced several provisions (in particular section 50A and 50C of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) to permit "reverse engineering" of software and the fixing of problems with it. So, between those two pieces of law, one judge-made and the other statutory, I don't see much to worry about: except, of course, for the fact that if a large multinational leans on an individual car-owner or farmer there is a good chance that they will prevail regardless of the merits of their legal case.

For more see Autoblog.com, Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars

Green Party sustains gunshot wound to foot over copyright, of all things

Who would have imagined that the biggest policy gaffe of the election would be over the duration of copyright? Well, go back a few years and it could have been "New" Labour swallowing the "Cliff's Law" argument hook, line and sinker, but actually this goes completely the other way. The Green Party, which had already ensured that it would not be getting my vote* by accepting the endorsement of the dreadful Russell Brand, announced that if elected ("if" being a very important word here, as the Greens had a single MP, their first, in the last Parliament) they would take us back to 1709 or 1710 (it always depends on whose calendar you use) and reduce copyright to 14 years. From creation or publication, it was not entirely clear, but certainly not PMA which might have been a bit more comprehensible.
It transpires - allegedly - that 14 years came from a Cambridge University postgrad student. Isn't that how the Iraq war started, too? To be fair to the Green Party (and of all the political parties they are the only one to which one should have any reason to be fair) this is mentioned in the same breath as their "Citizen's Income" idea, although the two policies seem to be associated because the latter would ensure people had time to devote to cultural activities which would (they imply) somehow justify reducing the term of copyright protection (the total volume of copyright, works multiplied by years protected, would remain much the same, on my reading of the policy). Had they said that because everyone will have the Citizen's Income there will be less need for people to earn money from copyright, it might have made a little sense: but as it is there is no logic underlying it at all, except for Mr (or presumably Dr now, as his work seems to date back to 2007) Pollock's thesis.
I have found myself participating in a couple of discussions on Facebook about this crazy idea, and it is clear that the Greens have upset a lot of creative people who might otherwise be more-than-averagely likely to favour them. And in addition to the damage they have done to their own support, how do they imagine it could be achieved? 14 years would not comply with the Berne Convention, so the UK would have to denounce (I think that's the right verb) that, and other international instruments. TRIPS probably isn't the Greens' favourite international agreement anyway, and certainly it has plenty of questionable things about it, but this is surely not the issue on which to challenge it. What about the directive? Copyright duration would be an odd reason for a Brexit. Then there would be inevitable claims under the European Convention on Human Rights, that copyright owners had suffered the loss of property. At least Cliff's Law would be a thing of the past.
There is plenty wrong with copyright, but anyone proposing to reform it would do best to consider its breadth rather than its depth. It is the omniverous nature of copyright, the indiscriminate way in which it confers protection on works with minimal originality, permitting big businesses to bully small users and reap super-normal profits, that should be addressed, and to my mind the way to do that is to reconsider the originality requirement (along with the notion of what constitutes a copy of an earlier work, in the case of sound recordings and films: given that "original" means, basically, "not copied", this amounts to the same thing). But I don't think that presses the right buttons in a general election.
The Greens also propose to legalise peer-to-peer filesharing where it is not commercial, and to "liberalise" the rules about fair use (which of course are absent from our copyright law entirely at present - "fair dealing" being rather different, a distinction which seems to have escaped the Greens). They claim they want it to apply outside academia, which - correct me if I am wrong - I thought was one of the places where fair dealing didn't run very far anyway. Still, we needn't worry too much: few people will vote Green just because of these policies, and they aren't within sight of even holding the balance of power in Parliament (are they?).

*I plan to support whoever is most opposed to the desecration of the North Wessex Downs AONB by massive housing developments, as per the draft Local Plan which the Conservative Group on our District Council voted through without demur. Unless that's the Greens, who won't get my support because of this copyright gaffe and the Brand thing. My local MP also alienated me by "cutting" me at the All Party Writers' Group winter party in December, and lost any possibility of getting my vote. Just so you know.

Art and Artifice: The dirty side of artistic copyright: septic tank ...

Art and Artifice reports on a case in the Privy Council, not something we come across every day, or even every decade: apart from Lego and Opportunity Knocks, which are now almost ancient history, I can't remember any in my time as a lawyer.


This is Gold Rock Corp Ltd & Anor v Hylton (The Bahamas) [2015] UKPC 17 (20 April 2015), a case which demonstrates (if the point needed demonstrating) that design protection often involves some rather unpleasant subject-matter - pig fenders (not too bad), slurry separators (a great deal more distasteful), and now septic tanks. Although we are in the realm of copyright here, so we are not considering septic tanks but rather designs for them, which is a much cleaner and more pleasant proposition.


Bahamian copyright law, in the form of the Copyright Act 1998 (amended in 2004, though not in a way material to the present case) bears some similarities to our law in the way it treats copyright in designs, but the wording is significantly different and as far as I can see there is no unregistered design protection, only a registered design system (under the Industrial Property Act 1965) which borrows heavily from the Registered Designs Act 1949 v1, allowing applicants to request a grant of "design copyright" (remember that?) and imposing an eye-appeal test. Oh, those were the days!


As for copyright protection, technical drawings are expressly included in the definition of artistic works, which is one significant difference from our law (though perhaps a difference of words only). The Bahamian Act then goes on (in section 2(3)) to restrict copyright in a design for a useful article:

the design of a useful article ... shall
be considered an artistic work only if, and only to the extent that,
such design incorporates artistic features that can be identified
separately from and are capable of existing independently of, the
utilitarian aspects of the article.

That seems, on the face of it, to be intended to deny copyright protection for designs for utilitarian things. Back in the heyday of copyright protection for designs, we might have expected an interesting debate about septic tanks in various fanciful and artful shapes, as I remember discussing the possibilities of conrods cast in the shape of the female human form: in each case a completely pointless exercise, because no-one in their right minds would think to copy the crazy design. Here, though, we get an extraordinarily narrow interpretation of those words, turning on a distinction between design (abstraction) and technical drawing (piece of paper: I almost wrote "concrete", in contradistinction to abstract, but concrete is precisely what the septic tanks were, so I would have confused the issue no end). The Board (well, Sir Kim Lewington, at any rate, speaking for all of them) said:

A “useful article” is ... a three-dimensional physical artefact. A technical drawing which gives instructions about how to make such an artefact is not itself a “useful article”; not least because its function is merely to convey information about how to make it. In the Board’s view the “design” of a useful article is a reference to the physical aspects of the article itself, rather than a technical drawing conveying instructions about how to make it. Any other interpretation would mean that it was almost impossible for any technical drawing to be protected by copyright, even though technical drawings are specifically included in the primary definition of “artistic works.”

So the drawings remained protected, and the PC advised Her Majesty that the appeal should be allowed, and no doubt she will take that advice rather then try to work out whether a better solution might be available. I find it hard to believe that this is the result the draftsman intended, although it is no doubt a correct reading of the words (especially in the light of all the experience we have of copyright and designs): but if the draftsman's intentions have been thwarted, we can all console ourselves by remembering that this whole area of law developed quite by accident, mostly as a result of the law of unintended consequences (the same law which I imagine will make the repeal of section 52 a disaster - but I digress ...).

Intel bullies home improvement company into name change

Intel trademark letter prompts UK business re-brand,  World Intellectual Property Review reports. The UK business, which seems to be the division of the Intelligent Home Improvement Group that deals in windows, had the temerity to use the now name, Intell Windows. Well, Intel had to stop that, didn't they? The window company complains that it cost £1,800 just for lawyers to send a letter back to Intel (either someone is being economical with the truth or a lawyer is having a laugh) and rebranding cost £15,000.

A humourless spokeswoman for the semiconductor maker is quoted as saying: "As with any other asset, we have an obligation to our shareholders to protect the value of our brand." If that statement could be reduced to a single word, Dr Johnson's definition of patriotism could nicely be applied to it. Unfortunately it explains (even, perhaps, sometimes excuses) a lot of trade mark bullying, but here it looks pathetic: would the shareholders really feel sufficiently threatened to have the company spend their money threatening the window company? There is clearly not the slightest risk of confusion - oh, Intel chips are capable of running Microsoft Windows(R), huh? - and if there is any possibility of dilution, tarnishment or unfair advantage it is vanishingly small. Shareholders might well ask themselves whether the legal bills, let alone the damage to the company's reputation, were worth it. They might be less humourless than the spokeswoman.

Had it been a fish and chip shop, it might have been a different story.

Assos, Asos and the "own name" defence

According to WIPR, Assos (a Swiss clothing manufacturer) is appealing against the Court of Appeal's April Fool's Day judgment (Maier v Asos [2015] EWCA Civ 220) holding that although the marks in suit were similar, and there was a likelihood of confusion and damage to the claimant's mark, Asos (an online retailer) could rely on the "own name" defence under section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. Read the WIPR report: there is no point in my paraphrasing it here, and I cannot direct you to the BAILII report because it is not online yet. At the same time, marvel at the WIPR's author's inability to identify members of the judiciary by their correct titles. What amateurs!
Assos are proposing to appeal to the Supreme Court, according to their solicitors Bird and Bird, and one can see why they might. Surely, despite cases which say otherwise, the "own name" defence was never intended to apply to company names which can so easily be invented to suit a particular purpose. However, that particular point (subject to what I find in the judgments in the Court of Appeal when they are published) seems to have become part of the corpus of trade mark law.
Of course, the defence is subject to the proviso that the use has to be in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters. That must be the key issue in this case, notwithstanding that Sales J seems to have based his dissenting judgment on logical restrictions on the scope of the defence.

The Washington Post: YouTube’s copyright system has taken Rand Paul’s presidential announcement offline

This report of a spectacular own goal almost made me laugh (but the excesses of modern intellectual property law and practice will never get past that "almost" - they are more likely to make me cry). The headline tells you everything.

I suppose it illustrates the importance of clearing rights for all the uses to which a copyright work might be put in the modern age. Perhaps Senator Paul, or at least his people, had obtained the myriad permissions (or the omnibus permission) needed but YouTube's robots, acting as WMG's agents, took it down anyway.

The reference in the article to huge music companies (the expression "Big Copyright" comes to mind) being able preemptively to apply copyright law encapsulates the problem in a way I have not read before: I will try to file that expression away for future use, although I think it is better called pre-emptive (my dictionary tells me that the hyphen is correct in the adjectival form but not in the adverb) enforcement, not application, which is too imprecise a term for lawyers to use (acceptable, though, for journalists, I think). Maybe it is a synonym for bullying. And read in the context of the Senator's attack on the power of special interests, the story becomes even more powerful.

Jeremy Phillips talks to Law Vox by Oxford Academic (OUP)

I am hugely enjoying this podcast, an interview with Jeremy Phillips produced by the publisher of so many IP books (including many of Jeremy's). It's highly informative and a great explanation of the importance of intellectual property law, although there are some themes that he might have explored such as the immense growth in the power of intellectual property rights ... although he does say that most trade marks are not intellectual property, a very useful proposition. When I have listened to it fully, and perhaps a couple of times, I might post more.
(Actually, is it right to call it a podcast if it cannot be downloaded?)

Intellectual property protection for Russian armaments

The Moscow Times reports that:

The [Russian] Defense Ministry is working on a system to keep track of Russian military innovations at home and abroad in an attempt to wrestle [sic] control of copyrights on Soviet-era equipment away from a global industry of imitators, state news agency RIA Novosti reported Wednesday.

Compared with other events in Russia, that's not really very worrying but it certainly gave me pause for thought. Do they really mean 'copyrights' (or even 'copyright')? Copyright is of course a feeble way to protect industrial designs these days, in the UK and in most other countries too. But patents would be even weaker, because the end of the Soviet era is more than a patent's lifetime ago ... To my surprise, though, I discovered that MT Kalashnikov (who died only in 2013, at the age of 94) was applying for patents with priority dates as recent as 1997 (this one for example - but why did a Chinese patent come up first on Espacenet?) and his son Viktor seems to be keeping up the - er - good work. So perhaps it's the words 'Soviet-era' in that quote that are questionable.
Lieutenant-General Kalashnikov has seemingly been responsible for arming most of the world. His inventions must constitute a large part of the production of the world's second-biggest arms exporter, albeit presumably at the lower end of the price scale: you have to sell a lot of assault rifles to make as much money as you would from a single jet fighter sold to, for example, India. It's probably not the jet fighters the Russians are worried about, though I recall that there were a lot of Chinese reproductions of Soviet aircraft around some time ago (just like the reproductions of various vehicle designs which the Chinese motor industry specialises in these days). Indeed, the Moscow Times story makes clear that the problem the Russians face is that sanctions mean they can't sell AK-47s like they used to, and that production in former Warsaw Pact countries, and China, where fraternal munitions factories were established during the Cold War (the First Cold War, as we might soon be calling it) is filling the gap. A large part of the market is probably in the USA, which is a nice paradox. (The manufacturer's website tells me, interestingly, that its Saiga-12 Mod. 340 sporting shotgun is widely used by law enforcers in the US, which may be a more significant piece of information: and Saiga hunting rifles are apparently very popular in the US too). Maybe Lenin's theory of imperialism could explain Russia's territorial expansionism, creating new markets for weapons among the little green men ...
Let's get back, as quickly as possible, to intellectual property. There might be some relevant patents: there might be some relevant copyright, in some countries: there might be some of the more exotic intellectual property rights like gebrauchsmuster. Design right in the UK would be no help, because it would have expired and in any case the designer was not an EU citizen nor was he habitually resident in the EU, and articles to his designs were not first marketed here. Registered designs are apt to protect the appearance but not the function of an article, so while they could be of some help (the appearance of the AK-47 is certainly important) it will be small - and even if relevant registrations were ever obtained they are likely to have expired long ago. Perhaps, unlikely as it seems, copyright is the manufacturer's strongest suit.
Unless ... what about trade marks? Both the surname of the inventor and the familiar designation of the weapon are highly distinctive. They meet all the requirements here for registration as a trade mark, leaving aside the question of public policy and morality I suppose, although the fact that 'AK' stand for Автома́т Кала́шникова (Kalashnikov automatic) might create a descriptiveness problem, against which 66 years' use might be an effective counterargument. But there's nothing I can find on the UK or EU registers that might assist, which is a rather surprising omission. Of course it is possible that the Polish, Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian and Chinese manufacturers referred to in the Moscow News article are not using either trade mark - but I bet the retailers in the US are. Which makes me wonder whether Russian-owned US trademarks can easily be enforced. I think that in the English courts an order for security for costs could put a spanner in the works - is there something similar in the US?
All of this highlights the important point, that it is the activities of foreign undertakings that are worrying the Russians. No point in bringing an infringement case in Syria or Iraq against whoever is supplying ISIL: this is a problem that can only be dealt with at the manufacturer level, and that won't affect the huge second-hand trade. Perhaps the Russians could persuade some of the offending manufacturers to stop, although unless they have a lot more legal protection in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania than they seem to have here they will be hard-pressed. Maybe the Serbs will be more open to the Russians' blandishments. The chances of stopping production in China are, one assumes, at best negligible.
If there were any point in trying to use legal steps to stop this trade in fake firearms in the UK, an action for passing off would seem to be the logical way to go, in the absence of anything better: and it could stand an excellent chance of success. But I don't think the UK is really their main worry, notwithstanding that the manufacturer's website mentions that it exports products to us. Precisely what, I don't know, but Izhmash, the distinctly Soviet-era name of the manufacturer (Izhevsk Machinebuilding Plant, or Ижевский Mашиностроительный Завод) before it merged with Izhmech (don't ask) to become a wonderful double entendre, the Kalashnikov Concern, made motorcycles which were sold here under the Cossack and Neval brands, along with motor vehicles and other mechanical items. The company's motorcycle (dating from 1928), the IZh 1, "owed a little" to contemporary motorcycles made by the German company DKW, according to Andy Thompson's Cars of the Soviet Union (Haynes Publishing, Somerset, UK, 2008), p.180, which rather brings us back to the start of this story: what goes around comes around, or Как ау́кнется — так и откли́кнется. And intellectual property law is not, I submit, the place to look for a solution, even if they do have any useful rights.

My favourite passing-off case

In an area of law where the cases are, almost by definition, often highly amusing, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars v Dodd [1981] FSR 519 is in a class of its own. John Dodd, the proprietor of an automatic transmission repair business, built his own car - actually taking over a rolling chassis which someone else had started and building a body on it - powered by a second-world-war vintage Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. The first iteration used an engine from a Centurion tank, rather less romantic than had it come from a Spitfire, the most celebrated machine in which the Merlin was used: the second car (its predecessor having been destroyed in a fire) had an engine from a bomber (a Mosquito, apparently). It also had a very different body style. Both cars featured a Rolls-Royce radiator grille and Spirit of Ecstasy mascot, at least until the manufacturer (whose company secretary at the time happened also to be called John Dodd) took him to court where Walton J granted an injunction to prevent passing off (referring to the car as a Rolls-Royce) and infringements of the company's trade marks.

Following the case, Mr Dodd started referring to the car as The Beast. When he promised the judge that he would change the name, Walton J asked where was Beauty. Perhaps in the eye of the beholder?

Thanks to the Internet, I find that Mr Dodd, who moved to Spain after he had breached the injunction within a couple of days (Whitford J fined him £5,000), is still running his automatic transmission repair business. Better still, YouTube has several clips of The Beast in action, including this one from an old edition of Top Gear. The embedded one below includes Mr Dodd executing a doughnut in it, sadly filmed from inside the car so you have to rely on his daughter's commentary.

Danish designers face problems in UK

Kluwer Copyright Blog reports that a Danish Court has issued a website blocking ruling concerning the illegal distribution of replica products. What is particularly interesting - to me, anyway - is that Danish designers of particularly furniture are facing problems with copyists making replica products in the UK and selling them over the Internet to Danish consumers. Is our design law really that pathetic? Yes, and it has been for years, although for good reason and car manufacturers must bear most of the blame: but for their excess of enthusiasm for trying to use copyright to control the spare parts market we might never had had the 1988 New Deal. Will repealing section 52 (which pre-existed the new deal, incidentally) make things any better? Perhaps it will bring our copyright law more in line with continental ones, but as critics of repeal have pointed out it was part of a sophisticated system of checks and balances, and removing it will throw the whole system into confusion.

Rihanna tee shirt case: Topshop lose on appeal

Fenty v Arcadia Group [2015] EWCA Civ 3  just appeared on BAILII. The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of Birss J that the defendants committed a passing-off when they sold tee shirts bearing the image of the singer Rihanna without her consent - exacerbated by the fact that she has previously had a commercial relationship with the retailer, so there was greater scope for deception of the public than usual. It's a very important case for the developing law on character merchandising and celebrity endorsement. I will comment a bit more when I have read the judgmemt, but the BBC's report of the case is worth a look.

India: Government sets up IPR think-tank

By Santosh Vikram Singh, Partner, Fox Mandal, Bangalore 

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, through a press release dated 22 October 2014 announced setting up an IPR Think Tank to draft a National Intellectual Property Rights Policy and to advise it on IPR issues. The committee will also give its views/opinions on possible implications of demands placed by negotiating partner countries. This becomes essential especially when India and the US are trying to find a common ground on the prickly IPR issues in the working group to be set up under the bilateral trade policy forum.
IPR Think Tank is a six member committee chaired by Justice (Retd.) PrabhaSridevan, who had in 2012 figured among the 50 most influential persons in the world in the IPR field, Ms. Pratibha Singh (Senior Advocate)-Member, Ms. Punita Bhargava (Advocate)-Member, Dr. Unnat Pandit of Cadila Pharmaceuticals-Member, Sh. Rajeev Srinivasan (Director Asian School of Business, Thiruvananthapuram)-Member and Sh. Narendra K. Sabarwal (Retired DDG, WIPO)-Member and Convener.

This move comes at a time when the Government of India has launched a ‘Make In India’ campaign in order to raise the capabilities of the country’s manufacturing sector while also generating employment. A strong and favorable IPR regime will doubtlessly augment this programme by attracting foreign investment. Most large western pharma majors already have a manufacturing base in India; they are ready to set up additional units and invest in R&D facilities provided India amends its IPR regime suitably.

India’s move to constitute this think tank must also be seen in the backdrop of recent Patent Judgments in the pharmaceuticals sector, where Indian Courts prevented frivolous patenting as well as the extension of patents held by pharma companies just by tweaking existing drugs and passing them off as innovations. The US pharma industry has not taken kindly to these judgments and many companies have again attacked India’s IPR regime.

DIPP’s move is thus welcome, as it is in this context of growing concerns voiced by developed countries over India's level of protection to intellectual property rights over drug and agricultural products, and Prime Minister Modi’s promise (during his recent visit to the USA) to create a more investment and business friendly environment in India.

The think tank is expected to highlight instances where India has respected innovation in patent cases, while deciding to fast-track and finalize the policy road map by early next year. In its first meeting held on October 29, the committee decided to finalize the draft IPR policy by March 2015. The committee will advise the government on best practices to be followed in trademark offices, patent offices and other government offices dealing with IPRs to create an efficient and transparent system of functioning. The committee will also keep the government regularly informed of developments taking place in IPR cases that are likely to have an impact on India’s IPR policy. It will examine the current issues raised by industry associations and those that may have appeared in media and advice the government on addressing issues.

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.

Arnold J on copyright law reform: the Herchel Smith lecture

I first attended the Herchel Smith lecture on intellectual property law in about 1980 – probably one of the first things I went to after I qualified. I have no idea how many I have attended since, but this evening I had the pleasure of hearing Sir Richard Arnold talking about copyright reform, and in terms that I could relate to. That means that he went right back to the Whitford Report, and indeed a great deal further than that.

His thesis was that copyright reform, which is long overdue (I thought there was a 30-year rule, with a bit of latitude to accommodate parliamentary timetables: 1911, 1956, 1988 …, but on that basis we have a few years to wait), ought to be holistic rather than incremental. Would 'iterative' be the right word for the way copyright law is developing? I favour 'gestalt' instead of 'holistic', but I might be missing something, or just trying to be pretentious. Anyway, root and branch reform is called for.

Whitford was a root and branch review of copyright law, and the 1988 Act a (or 'an'?) holistic reform. So was Gregory, and the 1956 Act. I didn't know about what had gone before, so I found Sir Richard's speech very educational, but Whitford remains for me the essential starting point of modern copyright law, simply because it was current when I first came to the subject – followed by Nicholson and then green and white papers. Copyright neophytes now presumably have the same relationship with Hargreaves, or perhaps Gowers, or Gowreaves as it suddenly occurred to me we should refer to the process of copyright reform between 2005 and 2012.

Since Whitford and the 1988 Act which eventually put into law many of that committee's suggestions (but not all of them, especially on designs, a subject on which the Whitford Committee was split but the government hatched its own ideas) reform has been piecemeal at best. Sir Richard suggested that comparisons with a patchwork quilt were an insult to the art of quilting, which I thought a nice turn of phrase, or an 'obsessively reused palimpsest' which is something I need to think about (with a big dictionary to help me appreciate the nuances). If palimpsest it be, the over-writing must have been getting progressively smaller and would now be barely legible.

Whitford, I remember, compared the 1956 Act to an elegant Queen Anne house to which there had been Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian and finally Elizabethan (the second, that is) additions: an architectural hotchpotch, and a legal one too. The 1988 Act, as it now stands, much amended, probably has new wings which dominate the original building, including modernist, brutalist, neo-classical and goodness knows what else: shards, cheesegraters and gherkins grafted on to the modest 18^th century original. Sir Richard listed seven problems with the 1988 Act, which I neglected to note down, but if I were to say that one of them was complexity that would not be far out. (Obsolescence, or actually being obsolete, in the face of technological progress was another,and a failure to conform to the structure of EU copyright law, or what I was horrified to hear him call 'European legislation', was another, and I guess we can work out what the others might be.) Anyway, he made the important point that the seven problems had not been addressed by Gowreaves, which is not surprising given their terms of reference (and the fact that if you want IP law thoroughly reviewed it would be a good idea to get an IP lawyer to do it, rather than ex-editors of the FT, knowledgeable though such men no doubt are). Hard to argue with that, I thought, though on the way to drinks after the lecture (there being no question-and-answer session, to my disappointment) I had precisely that argument with an acquaintance: he was of the view that it will always require highly-trained specialists to understand copyright, whereas I believe that unless you can make the law comprehensible to non-specialists the urban myths which already abound will just carry on growing. I don’t know which of us is right, but root-and-branch reform could easily take the rest of my lifetime, and that is perhaps sufficient argument against the ‘holistic’ or ‘gestalt’ approach.

The Patents (Supplementary Protection Certificates) Regulations 2014

The Patents (Supplementary Protection Certificates) Regulations 2014

Copyright in actor?

The Evening Standard, organ of the Russian opposition, reports that theatre goers have been ordered (by whom it doesn't say) to delete photos of actor Martin Freeman playing Richard III. They are being told that doing so breaches theatre etiquette (quite right) and copyright. Presumably the allegation is of an infringement of copyright - but in what? Idiots who fore off accusations like deserve to be required to cite the law on which they rely rather than trust to urban myth. It brings copyright, and the law in general, into disrepute.