Lord Clement-Jones
Main Page: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 28C and then to my own Amendment 28D. I support the amendment proposing a director-general of intellectual property rights, put forward so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I was extremely interested to hear about his Scottish connections, his great-grandfather and his relationship with Kelvin. There was a programme recently on the BBC about innovation that described how Matthew Boulton, James Watt's partner, succeeded in making sure that Watt derived benefit from his inventions and the modifications that he made to the Newcomen engine. It must be one of the few cases where innovators and inventors received a proper reward for their inventions. That was heartening. Perhaps it was as a result of Matthew Boulton's commercial enterprise that the Scots have been so inventive over the past couple of centuries.
As my noble friend mentioned, the UK is a world leader in intellectual property. He put some significant figures forward in terms of employment and the value of the creative sector. Therefore, how the Government develop IP policy is vital for our economy. We hear much about becoming a knowledge-driven economy. IP is vital for that and for those whom it supports, such as in manufacturing.
There is concern, however, extremely well reflected by my noble friend, that the IPO is not in fact a champion of intellectual property. I was a member of the All-Party Parliamentary IP Group inquiry into the IPO. From the evidence that I saw, officials did not see their role as being to champion intellectual property. Indeed, officials found it difficult to describe intellectual property as a property right even though nearly all creators believe that fundamentally. In fact, there were three important conclusions. My noble friend mentioned them but they bear repeating: IP is a vital foundation of economic growth, there is no champion of IP policy within government and that the IPO's policy-making function has lost the confidence of a large number of its key stakeholders. That is pretty unusual. The third point bears repeating as it is a very important conclusion.
It is significant that in their paper last year on the role of the IPO, the Government came to certain conclusions, which I think bear quotation:
“In coming to this conclusion, he”—
Hargreaves—
“argued that intellectual property policy had been insufficiently directed towards the objective of economic growth and that there had been instances in which IP policy had been developed in ways that were inconsistent with the economic evidence”.
Noble Lords can see the thrust. They continued:
“To improve the focus of IP policy on growth, the Review proposed that the Intellectual Property Office, as the Government body responsible for advising Ministers on the development of IP policy, should have an overarching legal mandate to promote innovation and growth, and state that IPO decisions will be based in evidence and take due account of the impact of the IP system on innovation and growth”.
I should say in parenthesis that your Lordships will note that there is no statement about the importance of intellectual property in the middle of that statement about innovation and growth. They go on:
“The Government wishes to retain the current structure of the IPO as an Executive Agency, combining practical experience of the IP system, gained through rights granting and advisory services, with policy responsibility. There are advantages in maintaining an organisation which has a blend of technical expertise and policy development skills, and the development of policy should not be done at arm’s length from Ministers”.
That was the major conclusion—that the IPO would pretty much stay as it is, with a stronger emphasis on innovation and growth.
Some of this is disappointing, especially in the light of the kind of proposal that we have here, but it is also fairly breathtaking. I shall not dwell on those comments unduly but the fact is that, as was recently demonstrated by Professor Hargreaves before the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the evidence base for his own reports has been flimsy at best when justifying certain copyright exceptions. The impact assessments for most of the relevant clauses in this Bill are also wholly inadequate as a result. The mantra that somehow copyright is a barrier to innovation and growth runs through the Hargreaves report and the work of the IPO, I am afraid.
Let us contrast that with the recent report on access to finance for the creative industries by Ian Livingstone, which is very positive about the need to recognise and build on the value of creative content. He fully recognises the benefit derived from promoting the creation and retention of intellectual property, alongside finance, skills creation and other factors.
Therefore, I hope—especially in the light of this amendment—that the Government will rethink their approach to intellectual property policy. As the feasibility studies by Richard Hooper and the work thereafter show, ambition within the UK’s collective licensing bodies and the creative industries to form hubs with other copyright owners—for example, for licensing music for services of every kind—right across the globe, making the UK a global licensing centre, really does exist to a powerful degree. The UK’s collective licensing bodies are investing in the technical expertise, processing power and administrative efficiency to handle billions of uses of music and other intellectual property, and to charge, collect and distribute income with precision.
I believe that that is of far greater significance across the board in the technology sector and the creative industries than the copyright law reforms proposed, whether in this Bill or in the proposed exceptions put out before Christmas. The Government should match this ambition and champion IP as much as possible. The IPO clearly needs to be more overtly a champion for IP. The United States has obviously benefited from having an IP tsar, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, who is responsible for a national strategy and works directly to the White House. Creating a director-general of intellectual property rights to sit within the Intellectual Property Office and serve as a champion of IP rights within and across government would increase the influence of the IPO across government and also strengthen the hand of the Minister responsible for IPO, if I may say so to my noble friend.
My noble friend quoted the Alliance for Intellectual Property and I should like to take another quotation. It says:
“We believe such a post is needed to ensure that this success is properly recognised, celebrated and built upon to ensure its contribution to growth, employment, culture and society is properly maximised; for IP to be championed in a way it is in other nations”.
Statutory underpinning of the IPO will give British IP-based industries the confidence that they need both at home and abroad.
Turning to Amendment 28D, as I mentioned, one of the most significant developments—in my view, far more significant than changes to copyright law—is the work following from Richard Hooper’s feasibility studies into a digital copyright exchange, otherwise known as the digital hub. Now the work following that feasibility study has been entrusted to a broadly representative voluntary group, the Copyright Licensing Steering Group. That has proved to get buy-in right across the creative sector. It is important to have an annual report on the follow-up to Professor Hooper’s recommendations and the progress made by the group in streamlining copyright licensing. He refers to that in paragraph 167 of his final report. We need to keep momentum going: how? He sets out several possibilities, but the one that I am attracted by is his fourth recommendation:
“Industry and the Government could also look at whether there is any productive and cost-effective overlap between reporting on and monitoring all the work described in this final report and Ofcom’s reporting requirements under the Digital Economy Act. This approach has the advantage of an independent voice but the disadvantage of perhaps moving away from the industry-led and industry-funded philosophy underpinning all this work. Given Ofcom’s new role in relation to copyright enforcement this may be an important idea for industry to consider given their concerns about copyright enforcement not being forceful enough”.
That is one suggestion; there are others; but they all surround the need to keep the momentum going and have a proper report to Parliament about progress on licensing. There is support for that approach from the Government’s paper on the role of the IPO that I mentioned previously. It states:
“The Government therefore considers that the most effective way of strengthening the IPO’s focus on innovation and growth would be to require it to report annually on the extent to which its activities had promoted those two ends. This increased transparency would act as a powerful incentive to develop policy based on the best available evidence, and to be clear about the respective weightings given to economic and social impacts on individual policy issues. Where the data are not as robust as we might like, a requirement to report will act as a spur to improve the quality of evidence”.
Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in that respect.
I close by citing some very wise words from the closing paragraphs of the second Hooper feasibility study. I think that they apply across the board to both amendments.
“In conclusion, the political dimension of our work, introduced in our first report, remains constant: if the creative industries ensure that they have done all they can to make licensing and copyright work easier for rights users and therefore consumers, then the ball is firmly at the feet of politicians to ensure appropriate measures are in place to reduce the incidence of copyright infringement on the web … There must be a sensible balance between the rights and requirements of licensors and of licensees, of producers and of consumers, a balance that is beneficial to both parties leading to further and sustained growth and innovation in the UK creative and internet industries … But intellectual property across copyright, trademarks, design rights and patents is at the heart of the success of a modern knowledge-based economy it must be sensibly protected against theft and improper use”.
Amen to that.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 28C, following my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Clement-Jones. It was interesting to hear from my noble friend Lord Jenkin about his genes. It made me think about my genes, and my grandfather, who invested a great deal of time, energy, love and passion in developing motor racing cars back in the 1950s and 1960s. I remember as a young child the privilege of being able to stand within what we called the works to watch those incredible machines being built. That was wonderful. The specifications used to build those machines, and their protection, were paramount to their success as flagship examples of British industry, for jobs, investment and advancement of technology within the motor industry and the motor racing industry. Of course, the principles that were clear then, in the 1950s and 1960s, are no different today. The protection of copyright is crucial for certainty. Everybody involved in the creative industries needs certainty. Often, as we know, people in the creative industries are taking enormous risks—very often on their own—whether they are a lone photographer or a filmmaker or a record company representing multiple interests.
Lord Clement-Jones
I will respond briefly and leave my noble friend Lord Jenkin to respond to the main amendment. I welcome the fact that the Minister has come out of his corner punching. He has certainly set out the term extension, the charging charities, the anti-piracy measures, the statement by my noble friend Vince Cable about super fast patent procedures, trade mark services and so on. He has also given us a mini update on the copyright hub, which is what I asked for all along on an annual basis. I am not at all convinced by the plea that there will be lots of commercially sensitive data that would have to be included in any report on the copyright hub. I ask my noble friend whether the report on innovation and growth that the IPO is going to be tasked to deliver on an annual basis could include licensing. I believe that licensing is the way forward to innovation and growth for the content and creative industries. It is extremely important, rather than copyright exceptions. There is no reason why it should not be included in the IPO’s report and maybe that is a way of coming to a beneficial conclusion on this.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, contrary to the figures in front of us on the chart, we have actually spent over an hour on the first amendment. I do not, therefore, want to take more time. I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I think it justified what I said at the beginning about the level of support there is for, if not this particular amendment then the recognition that “all is not well”—to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. All is not well in the field of copyright. I leave the Minister with this thought. The Government have got to do a great deal more if they are going to regain the confidence of copyright owners. I heard what he said and I shall study it carefully. However, there is no question about it, those of us who have been exposed over recent months to the considerable expressions of dismay and, indeed, fear for the future on the behalf of IP owners are left in doubt at all that, as the noble Baroness said, all is not well.
The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for seeking balance, is probably what the IPO claims that it would be doing. The fact of the matter is that it has lost the confidence of all those who are concerned as the owners of IP. Something has to be done in order to get the improvement in the whole copyright structure that is widely sought. It may well be that the director-general proposal will need to be looked at again in the light of what has been said in the debate about it. One point I would make is that the all-party group recommended that it come under the Secretary of State for DCMS whereas the IPO comes under BIS. The amendment says “Secretary of State” and that covers all of them, so the amendment does not distinguish.
I agree with what has been said. There is a lack of co-ordination across Whitehall—a lack of the same kind of recognition of the importance of IP lying at the heart of our economy, and it will increasingly lie at the heart of our economy as it becomes even more based on intellectual property and less on manual labour. We have got to look at this very carefully. Parliament has an opportunity to express its views. I have no doubt at all that we shall want to return to the matter at Report. I give notice to my noble friend that I expect that is what we will do, but we will study what he has said very carefully. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I support Amendment 28DZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I agreed with much of his introduction, the broad sweep of which was impressive given the nature of these amendments. He commented that exceptions will be introduced by secondary legislation. I associate myself with those remarks. I do not believe that secondary legislation is the right way to introduce those exceptions. It should be done by primary legislation.
That said, it is worth unpacking the metadata amendment slightly because I think that exactly how the amendment would operate should be on the record. Section 296ZG of the 1988 Act, which was inserted in 2003, provides protection for electronic rights management information by giving a cause of action to rights owners when such information is removed or altered by a third party without authority, provided that the third party has the necessary mental element—that is, that it knowingly and without authority removes or alters electronic rights management information.
The amendment seeks to deal with the specific problem that arises when copies of works or other subject matter are gathered by an automated process. It has particular relevance to the actions of search engines and other operators who “spider” the world wide web. Because copies are gathered and often stored or processed by an automated process, no human mind will normally read rights management information which is associated with or embedded in the protected subject matter. The law is presently unclear about the circumstances in which the operator of the automated process will be deemed to have rights management information drawn to his attention. Therefore, the amendment seeks to provide certainty in this regard. It does not expand the scope of any rights belonging to the copyright holder or other right holder. A person gathering materials is free to disregard any restrictions which may be communicated by means of rights management information if, for example, the acts he is carrying out are protected by a fair dealing defence or for any other reason do not fall within the scope of the copyright or other right.
Subsection (1) makes it clear that the effects of the proposed new clause are restricted to persons who gather or access copyright or other protected materials in the course of a business. Therefore, the circumstances in which consumers might be affected by any restrictions in electronic rights management information are outside the scope of the proposed new clause and remain governed by the law at large.
As the Minister may know, the amendment is supported by a large number of members of the creative industries. There is a strong view that metadata is crucial for the future of copyright protection, that it is central towards an efficient, effective and robust licensing system, that it has part of the solution to diligent search for orphan rights and orphan works, and that it is also helpful in terms of pseudonymous works.
I end by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe —I often trawl through the internet to find her best quotations. This one is particularly apt in this set of circumstances. It comes from a House of Lords debate in June 2005:
“For those who make photography their life’s work, protecting their copyright goes beyond the emotive; it is their livelihood. Without adequate protection the photographic image—tomorrow’s cultural heritage—and those who create it will cease to have true value, and without adequate protection a profession dies. Photographers are concerned that, in the digital age, information supplied with the digital image about copyright and the creator is stripped away, often automatically, so that in a matter of moments the world is awash with ‘orphan’ images”.—[Official Report, 22/6/05; col. 1690.]
That was in 2005. We have not done anything about that issue but the passage of this Bill provides a chance to do just that.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, my noble friend has done well to raise the question of metadata in his amendment. I think that we need to be extremely careful about how we legislate on this, whether in primary or secondary legislation. Until such time as the technical means to counter the well known abuses of the intellectual property for digital photography by stripping metadata have been found, we should certainly be cautious, to say the least, about how we proceed to license digitally photographed works on the basis that they are orphan works.
My noble friend Lord Stevenson has also done us a good turn in fixing our attention on the question of what should be legislated in primary legislation and what should be left to secondary legislation. Will the Minister in due course comment on some questions of practicality and principle in this regard?
In what I am going to say, I make absolutely no criticism of the Minister personally. He has only just become Minister for Intellectual Property. I wish him very well indeed in that responsibility, and I hope he stays there until May 2015, and no longer. I wish him well during his incumbency, and the continuity that he may enjoy will undoubtedly be valuable for all concerned. Would it not have been more satisfactory if, when we came to consider clauses in primary legislation seeking to update the law on copyright, we also had before us at least an advanced draft of the secondary legislation to which the primary legislation would give authority? It is very difficult for us to know how to amend primary clauses and what view to take, all in all, about the Government’s proposals in the Bill if we do not know what the secondary legislation might look like as it will flesh out the relatively simple legislative propositions in the Bill.
I remember when it became clear that Clause 43 of the Digital Economy Bill was not going to make it to the statute book because of the imminence of the general election in 2010. I pleaded with the department that as it continued to wrestle with these policy issues it should move towards exhibiting draft regulations at the same time as it exhibited draft primary legislation so that all this could be put out to consultation together once it had been considered with the expert groups, such as those that the Intellectual Property Office is meeting at present. That was three years ago, and it seems to me that the House, and Parliament as a whole, is entitled to expect that the Government had made better progress on preparing the primary and secondary legislation before they presented it to us.
I was the government Whip in the Commons on the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill 25 years ago, and I think it is fair to say that that legislation was somewhat less bald, somewhat less framework, and attempted to contain a more substantial body of legislative provision. The spirit in which both Houses of Parliament worked on that legislation 25 years ago was entirely collegiate. There was no party politics in it at all. We were all simply seeking to work our way forwards to find an appropriate legislative solution. Our deliberations and conclusions were observed with very great interest in other countries. We can continue to legislate in that spirit, but it would have helped us if the Government had allowed us to know a little more about what the primary legislation would open the way to.
While I reject the suggestions that have been put to us in some of the otherwise very helpful briefings that we have received that Parliament virtually does not scrutinise secondary legislation, I think that the situation, at least in this House, is significantly better than that, and we ought to pay tribute to the committees of this House that examine the quality and appropriateness of secondary legislation. We all know that it cannot be amended, and a great fuss is made if a statutory instrument is rejected by the House, so although we are not quite presented with a fait accompli when we consider secondary legislation, it is not a particularly satisfactory manner of advancing the frontiers of legislation. Much more exposure in draft and much more consultation—I know we will have it in due course—would be preferable at this stage. The Minister has perhaps not had an opportunity to consider this question of process as yet, so I hope that, not today, but at some point, he will feel able to offer some comments on it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I shall speak also to the other two amendments in the group which are in effect variations on a theme. Article 17 of the Designs Directive (98/71) and Article 96(2) of the EU Design Regulation (6/2002) leave to member states the freedom to regulate the extent of protection offered by copyright to designs. The amendments in this group seek to pre-empt what the Government intend to do in this complex area, which is to repeal Section 52 of the CDPA, by means of a general fair use provision and a narrower images exemption.
Amendment 28DZB seeks to protect the interests of many of the third parties affected by the Government’s proposal: those who have created images of existing designed articles. This includes publishers who have included images of old designs in their works, museums, individuals using images of design on websites, educators wanting to use images in teaching, photographers, picture libraries and so on. Many of these people will have invested in the production of images and films of designed articles when it was lawful to do so. Their interests are not likely to be protected by a transitional rule allowing stocks to be sold off; every time the images are shown in public, or reproduced, there will be an infringement.
This images exemption seeks to protect these third parties by allowing the making and exploitation of two-dimensional images and films of designed articles which have been placed on the market. In fact, it goes a little further than protecting these third parties during a transitional period, as it will permit such images to be created and sold in the future. This is a narrow derogation from the serious expansion of rights of design proprietors by the repeal of Section 52 and, in my view, does not prejudice the normal exploitation or the legitimate interests of the copyright holder. I think there is a major issue here, and I hope very much that the Minister will have further thoughts on this issue as he listens to this debate.
Amendment 28DZC builds on the breadth offered by the directive and the regulation. As drafted, the provision seeks to minimise the uncertainty inherent in a fair-use defence, such as that available generally for copyright under US law, with its white list and black list of deemed fair and unfair uses, leaving other uses to be judged in the individual case by reference to relevant factors.
One goal of this amendment is to protect follow-on designers: those who incorporate parts of old designs but transform the totality. It is well known that designers build with and on the design ideas of their predecessors. I believe the extension of copyright term to life plus 70 will make this much more difficult because of the sheer length of the term and because copyright protection is stronger in many ways than design protection. In my view, this issue has not been given sufficient weight, as we need to give careful consideration to the needs of future generations of designers.
Under existing design law, copying a part of an old design and incorporating it in a new, transformed design would not infringe any of the 25-year registered design rights unless the overall design produces on the informed user the same overall impression. However the copyright test is different. Copyright prohibits reproduction of any part of a protected work. One of the proposed white list of fair uses ensures that no use of a copyright-protected design infringes unless it would produce the same impression on an informed user. In short, it harmonises the copyright test with the EU design test.
Another goal is to protect educators, publishers, film-makers and website operators who use images of designed articles in their teaching, in their books, in their films and on their websites. These uses would be white listed as automatically fair. The black list deems unfair any use of a design in making an article which does not credit the original designer. It may be fair to start making old designs which are no longer being marketed—for example, fabric or wallpaper designs—particularly where the designer or design owner cannot be found. This clause indicates that it would not be fair to do so without indicating the origin of the original design.
However, the debate on this issue revolves primarily on whether the Government are right to delete Section 52 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, whether by so doing and ending the current regime of registered designs they have fully considered all the issues which flow from that decision, and the implications that arise for products which are or are about to be out of rights protection under the present registered design period of 25 years, which will in future be in copyright for a period of 70 years after the death of the designer.
There is, of course, a very good case to be made for letting industrial designers have the same protection for their efforts as is available to composers, writers and the like, but I think there are some real questions about this issue, which might suggest to the Government that a pause for reflection before implementing this major change might be sensible.
One practical effect of this repeal will be to make replica versions of classic designs, such as Jacobsen’s egg chair, unaffordable to many consumers. Additionally, the creative freedom of future designers will be constrained because of the need to avoid breaching the copyrights of older predecessors, which cuts across the very essence of much industrial design.
Why was this proposal not preceded by a full consultation with stakeholders? Why has the impact assessment that has been published in fact got very little detail about the impact? Moreover, the assessment seems to have failed to acknowledge the impact on anyone other than designers, those who make and sell replica designs, consumers and the Government themselves. Would the Minister not agree that this initiative has not been handled properly?
The Minister may well argue that the Government had no option but to legislate. If that is the case, can he confirm that the Government are rushing to legislate on the basis of one recent European case, Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA, which has been reported recently? The case concerned the design of the famous Arco lamp, consisting of a long, curved, metal arm supported by a marble block and finishing with a silver globe-shaped lampshade. I should declare an interest since I have one of the original design, fully paid for, at home. The design was created in 1962 by the Italians Achille and Pier Castiglioni, and any industrial design protection the design had once possessed has lapsed. Flos nevertheless claimed copyright in the lamp and that it had been infringed when Semeraro imported its Fluica lamp into Italy from China.
I am no lawyer, but I think we need to be sure that the UK response to Flos is appropriate and proportionate. The Government have decided on the basis of this single and recent case that we should abandon the whole of our registered design margin of appreciation. Surely the better approach would be to try to maintain Section 52, as that was explicitly agreed between the UK Government and the Commission during the process of adoption of the design directive. For the avoidance of doubt, as I have already said, there clearly is a good case for giving industrial designers the same copyright protection as applies to other creative industries, but the fact is that we currently have a different regime, and harmonisation of design and copyright should not be an end in itself or be driven by one isolated case.
The impact assessment is far from complete, but it admits that the reform of Section 52 will harm consumer welfare as classic designs—those that are more than 25 years old—will be re-monopolised. Replicas, currently available at some 15% to 20% of the price of the original, will no longer be available. No opportunity has been taken for consumers to be consulted. Moreover, there are those who argue that the impact assessment significantly underestimates the other costs that will arise, particularly because of its focus on furniture and three-dimensional design.
The Government believe that the change would encourage innovation and investment in design, but this is supported by the flimsiest of arguments in the impact assessment and no new evidence is offered to explain why the balance of interests between designer and owner, competitors and consumers, should be drawn differently today than in 1988 or indeed in 1994-95 when the Government successfully negotiated to retain Section 52 of the CDPA.
I am also concerned—and here I echo the comments made recently by my noble friend Lord Howarth—that as yet we have no idea what the traditional arrangements will be when Section 52 is repealed. Will it be on existing stocks and on articles which are out of copyright and which will now gain further periods of protection? Surely we need to see the draft proposals in this area as soon as possible and certainly before Report.
In conclusion, I should like to return to the question of the impact that this change will have on firms whose registered designs have come out of protection but which may now regain copyright protection to the detriment of consumers but to the benefit of rights holders.
I mentioned the egg chair, but it has been suggested to me that another area which will be affected is wallpaper. Wallpaper is within the current scope of Section 52 and is not in the exclusion for matters of a “primarily literary and artistic character”, so the change may well benefit companies in this field. The Minister will be aware of the firm Osborne and Little, which is primarily a wallpaper maker, founded in 1968. As I understand it, designs that were first produced and sold by that company between 1968 and 1987 will, if this clause goes forward, come back into copyright. It might therefore be for the benefit of the Committee if the Minister could confirm whether his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been alerted to this change, as it may be of some considerable interest to him. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 28DZB, and I shall also speak to Amendment 28EB. More particularly, in view of the very cogent introduction to Amendment 28DZB given by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—it was a tour de force, in my view—the fact is that Clause 65 looks more problematic the more one looks at it. The problems are exacerbated as there was no prior consultation by the Government on these provisions, nor is any cost or benefit set out in the impact assessment. Indeed, there has been no really authoritative review of the impact of the ECJ case mentioned by the noble Lord—Flos v Semeraro—and on whether it really does oblige the UK to repeal Section 52.
On the one hand, the design industry says that it has limited benefit, covering only works of artistic craftsmanship and only then pre-1989 designs and the introduction of the unregistered design right regime. The industry also says that works of art produced before 1957 would not benefit from the full copyright protection. On the other hand, many, including the publishing industry and the art and museum world, are very concerned about the impact of the clause on their ability to produce two-dimensional images of these kinds of artistic works, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has explained.
The proposed new clause is intended to apply the same term of copyright protection to artistic works as the term enjoyed by other copyright works—that is, the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years following their death. Currently, where more than 50 copies of an artistic work are manufactured, the term of copyright is only 25 years.
Publishers are rightly concerned about the impact that this clause may have on the publishers of books that include images and descriptions of artistic works which will now be subject to extended copyright. Such publications would be likely to find themselves retrospectively in breach of copyright. Without this kind of amendment, the clause could, as the British Screen Advisory Council has emphasised—I think that my noble friend Lady Brinton will be extremely interested in this—even include props used in a film and articles in a location where filming has taken place so that this is deemed to be copying of an artistic work which would otherwise have been permitted by Section 52. The position of websites, so important for public access and education, would also be uncertain. It would be even more disastrous if retrospective clearance were required.
I strongly support Amendment 28DZB, which would put this matter beyond doubt. I was delighted to see that it is also supported by the V&A, which is as good a judge as anyone on these matters and is able to take a balanced view—again, we have the word “balance”. However, I do not support the introduction of the novel concept of fair use in Amendment 28DZC, although I understand the motive behind it.
As a preferable alternative, Amendment 28EB, suggested by a group of professors of design and others, tries to meet the needs of follow-on designers—the designers of today and tomorrow that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about. There are two concerns that underpin this amendment, particularly from those who have a great deal to do with up and coming designers. Copyright, as they explain, is in important respects more restrictive on follow-on designers than the protection given by community and national registered and community unregistered design rights, which limit protection for the making of articles which do not produce on the informed user a different overall impression. So if a designer uses part of an existing designed article but incorporates it in something that overall appears different, under the community registered and UK registered design, there is no infringement. In contrast—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, put this in other words—copyright has been interpreted to prohibit the reproduction of any part which is itself original in the copyright sense of involving creative choices. So if a motif from a textile or wallpaper—we are back to wallpaper—is copied but put in a very different context, there will be infringement of copyright, but not design rights. These professors say that the difference is not widely appreciated, as it depends on a detailed understanding of each legal regime, added to which we are only starting to get court decisions on the interpretation of the community design test and the EU copyright notion of reproduction in part.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I particularly support the comments made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, on how the proposals would affect teachers in schools, colleges and universities. We have already heard that in order to use any type of digital information, users will need to apply for a licence. In addition to teachers, publishers reproducing photographs of industrially produced articles or museums and archives wanting to display them will also require licences. Along with other noble Lords, I am concerned that this will stifle the development of the creative sector, which is vital to the growth of the economy. There needs to be a balance between what is trying to be achieved and the practical problems that teachers and others would face.
I am also concerned that the government impact assessment focuses solely on commercial designs—as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—particularly replica furniture and other household goods. It is essential that non-commercial users are also consulted; they are currently covered by Section 52 of the CDPA, as has been mentioned. Those would include academics, museums, archives, libraries and publishers to make sure that the repeal of this provision does not have a negative, unintended consequence.
On Amendment 28EB, I am grateful for the reference by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones to props in theatre. Unfortunately, the second paragraph of his amendment would create a practical problem. Before I went to Cambridge, I was a stage manager at the BBC. When you ordered a prop, you ordered it in one of three forms. It was either fully practical, for example a phone that would ring and you could speak to somebody; practical, so that you could pick it up and it would look and sound like the real thing; or non-practical—basically wood painted to look like the required item. All three of those were an identical telephone. Unfortunately, the clause would create a real problem, because the intention was to produce the article, as defined here, with no intention at all to infringe any copyright. I suspect that, with phones being so cheap these days, people do not go to the bother that they used to in the early and mid-70s when I was carrying out these orders, but there are plenty of other things within the creative sector that would be caught by this unintentional consequence.
Lord Clement-Jones
I want to respond very briefly to my noble friend. This amendment is intended for an entirely different purpose. It is not designed to deal with the props issue. The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was to deal with that, but this is to deal with an entirely different issue to do with follow-on design. Young designers use inspiration from an existing artistic three-dimensional work and want to incorporate that. That is the purpose of this amendment. This is needed in addition to other amendments to the clause. That is why the more you look at Clause 65, the more problematic it becomes.
Lord Clement-Jones
Briefly, my Lords, if I may, I understand everything that the Minister has said, but I was a bit flabbergasted by the final statement that the Government have considered this very carefully. The Minister mentioned a few people whom the consultation had taken place with, but the fact is that those people who are suggesting amendments are the very people with whom the consultation has taken place—the Publishers Association and seven professors of design who, after all, ought to know whether young designers are going to benefit from this kind of provision. They have a clear view when they are looking at young designers in the future. There are seven of them, from the University of Cambridge, King’s College London, the University of Glasgow, Oxford, University College London, Bournemouth University and the University of Edinburgh. If they do not know what is going on in the field, who does? They have grave concerns. I felt that the Minister’s response was both disappointing and rather dusty. Perhaps he could give some sort of undertaking to look at this a bit more carefully rather than simply saying, “There is no amendment possible to this clause; all that is available is consultation over how it is brought into effect”. Surely that is unacceptable in the light of all the concerns that have been raised about Clause 65.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I have listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on these matters and have taken note. I am not sure that I can convince him that consultation is the right way forward, but I hope that he will accept that. I doubt that he will, but I have taken a firm note of what he has said.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 28E and 28F. The Government, and indeed the IPO, published a factsheet on copyright protection for designs, but with the best will in the world this was not adequate, especially in the absence of an impact assessment. The Government need to provide detail in the Bill on the transitional arrangements that they intend to introduce. Without clear and explicit communication about those arrangements, manufacturers and others affected—we have heard that considerable numbers will be affected—will not feel confident that their works and therefore businesses will not be affected. Waiting for the Bill to pass before consulting on transitional arrangements is surely unacceptable and creates a climate of uncertainty. The Government need to be clear as to what they believe is an acceptable and legal transition period. Under European law, the UK Government may have limited scope to introduce transitional arrangements that would be broad enough to mitigate a significant and detrimental impact on third parties. We know that, at the very least, a period of 10 years’ transition has been ruled by the ECJ as being too long, so it is vital to know what period of transition the UK Government believe would be in compliance. Will the Government provide an impact assessment to analyse the effect of various transitional provisions under the clause on the publishing and other third parties? My amendments put forward two rather different suggestions for the transitional period for replicas of artistic designs and are an attempt to tease out the Government’s real intentions. The first amendment is very similar to that put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and is designed to flush out the process by which the Government intend to introduce transitional provisions. The second, along the lines of that of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is designed to probe the actual transitional provisions.
Amendment 28F would ensure a short—six months is more reasonable than four—transitional period for products manufactured within the EEA, and third persons that hold stocks of unsold items in the EEA. That is a variation of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. It also foresees a six-month extension if a third party provides justification of some exceptional circumstances. The design companies say that most companies offering replicas of artistic designs do not manufacture those products in the EEA. We heard that from the noble Baroness and from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. They say that most replicas are imported from Asia. Has an assessment been made of this, and has it been assessed as part of the likely transitional periods? A six-month transitional period under Amendment 28F could be extended up to 12 months. It would also be in line with EU law by being proportionate and not going beyond what is needed to ensure an appropriate balance between the interests of the right holders and the legitimate expectations of the parties concerned.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, Amendment 28DA seeks to ensure that copyright is revived in works of artistic craftsmanship created before 1957. This would apply, for example, to works such as the Wassily chair, designed by Marcel Breuer in 1925 to 1926. Chairs seem to be a favourite theme today. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned a chair; I was not entirely clear what type of chair it was.
The law in this area is complicated, but the term directive is clear. If the chair was protected by copyright in any other member state before 1995, copyright would also have to apply in the United Kingdom. Amendment 28FA also concerns those works in which copyright is revived. It seeks to remove those provisions which impose an obligation on the owner of a revived work to grant a licence even if he would prefer not to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has raised an interesting point with this amendment that deserves further consideration. We shall have the opportunity to consider these very specific issues more carefully before the clause is commenced and there will be the opportunity to deal with the issue in the relevant regulations.
Amendments 28E, 28EA and 28F seek to set out the transitional provisions which govern how the change in the law will apply to articles made or imported into the UK or EEA when the law is changed. The Government are aware that there are potential impacts on businesses that manufacture or sell replicas and are committed to consulting on how and when to implement the changes.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked whether there will be an impact assessment to show the potential effects of the transitional provisions on producers and other third parties. The Government have already produced an impact assessment and will ensure that it is kept up to date as the legislative process moves on.
There are pros and cons to setting a relatively longer or shorter transition period. We understand how that concerns my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. It will be important that any decision on transitional provisions takes account of the consent of all parties involved. That includes, for example, the length of existing supply contracts and leases for warehouses where products are stored. I confirm to the Committee that we intend that existing stock in the UK will not be affected by the change in the law; the change will apply only to items manufactured or imported after that date. If an express transitional provision proves necessary, the regulations shall provide for it.
This change in law needs to be introduced in a measured way, balancing the needs of the parties involved. The Government have carefully considered the issues and I hope that, in the light of the above, the noble Baroness and my noble friend will not press their amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
I shall intervene only briefly. It is good news to hear that there is an impact assessment on business and other third parties which will be regularly updated, but, personally, I am none the wiser about the Government’s intentions about time periods for the transition. It is rather baffling. If there is an impact assessment which helps to inform government policy in this respect, it has not been used to take the next step, which is to give a concrete view of the proper period, how the transition will take effect and on whom it will impact.
If the regulations are in the offing, it would be extremely helpful for the Minister at least to give us a glimpse of some of the thinking, which might allay some of the concerns raised in this short debate.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can only reiterate to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones that we are committed to continuing to consult. The best way to respond is to say that we will continue to keep him informed on progress. Progress is not intended to be slow; we intend to proceed with this as fast as we possibly can and to present a timetable wherever we can.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, as originally drafted and debated in another place, this clause equipped the Government with wide-ranging and far-reaching powers to amend, remove or introduce exceptions to copyright via secondary legislation. It caused a fair amount of alarm and a lot of correspondence from those who were following the debate in another place. Many noble Lords present today will have received correspondence about this.
The amendments made during Report in the House of Commons clarified that the regulations,
“may make only such provision as may be made under subsection (2) of section 2 of European Communities Act 1972 or such provision as could be made under that subsection if paragraph 1(1)(d) of a Schedule 2 did not apply”.
I think that means that the Government’s stated aim is to,
“make it clear that [the clause] offers no further power than Parliament already has to make changes to copyright exceptions”.
However, we are disappointed that the language and scope of the clause continues to focus on exceptions to copyright, rather than criminal penalties, which ostensibly is its purpose.
If the Government’s intention is to safeguard criminal penalties for copyright infringement—which is absolutely necessary—we cannot apprehend why there continues to be such a resistance to making that intention unequivocally clear on the face of the Bill. Many of our correspondents would like to see this clause deleted in its entirety. Indeed, a number of proposals have been made in that respect. We have, however, proposed that amendments that seek to narrow and clarify the intentions of the clause in line with the Government’s stated aims, by stipulating that each proposed exception to copyright is subject to an individual statutory instrument and has its own associated economic impact assessment would be the right way forward. Reform of exceptions must not be bundled into a single SI.
Seemingly minor amendments related to changes in the scope of copyright exceptions can have significant commercial consequences for organisations that invest heavily in content creation and preservation. Each individual exception requires careful consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The stated aim of Clause 66 is to ensure that where secondary legislation is used to amend copyright exceptions, the existing penalties for copyright infringement would remain unchanged. This is stated in paragraph 506 of the Explanatory Notes. This stated aim by itself is unobjectionable. However, throughout the Bill’s passage through the Commons, MPs and outside organisations expressed serious concerns regarding the wide drafting of the clause—then Clause 56 and 57. The drafting was too broad and potentially involved the Government having significantly greater powers to alter copyright exceptions by secondary legislation than they currently enjoy. The Government amended this clause on Report. An amendment introduced on Report in the Commons permits the Secretary of State by order to change copyright exceptions within the scope permitted under subsection (2) of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972—implementing European directives—and repeals paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the EC Act in respect of such changes.
The new wording to Clause 66 gives some but not enough reassurance or certainty that the clause will be limited in application to penalties. The Government’s explanation of Clause 66 refers to penalties. Clause 66,
“arose as a specific consequence of our wanting to keep the strong penalties needed to remove exceptions.”—[Official Report, Commons, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Committee, 12/7/12; col. 628.]
However, Clause 66 is headed “Power to change exceptions: copyright and rights in performances”. The clauses as added to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which they are intended to amend, will be headed “Power to add or remove exceptions to copyright” and “rights in performances” and the clause itself refers to copyright exceptions.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, there is no impact assessment and there has been no consultation on the clause. These amendments limit the clause to penalties—it removes the references to copyright exceptions. The Government have explicitly stated that they will not use Clause 66 to introduce exceptions. The Government stated that:
“Clause 56 is not part of the wider Hargreaves work but arose as a specific consequence of our wanting to keep the strong penalties needed to remove exceptions.”—[Official Report, Commons, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Committee, 12/7/2012; col. 628.]
Clause 69 is in many ways admirably concise in relation to penalties relating to copyright protection under the term directive. Clause 69 refers explicitly to penalties and is unambiguous. Why can Clause 66 not be drafted similarly?
I understand that officials have said that Clause 66 may be used to amend two sections, Sections 72 and 73 of the CDPA, but those issues are the subject of court proceedings and it is doubtful whether Clause 66 as amended would be able to address the issues adequately, because they lie outside the European acquis communautaire and further primary legislation would be needed in any event.
It is not surprising that in a recent meeting with stakeholders, an official of the IPO said that all are agreed that the current wording of Clause 66 is confusing. Why do we not make everything clear and take on board these amendments?
Lord Clement-Jones
I always get up when there is something to object to, but in this case I will thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will make a very positive response.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, he does not give me much leeway, does he? I thank him very much, and I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 28G, 28H and 28J. I will not speak to Amendment 28JA, but I support it, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will speak to it.
As has been discussed, an earlier version of Clause 66 was the subject of extensive debate in the House of Commons, particularly in Committee. As a consequence of the points raised, the clause is amended, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has indicated a further amendment to give greater clarity about the intention behind the Bill since then. The primary intention behind this clause is to allow new exceptions to copyright to be accompanied by the introduction of higher criminal penalties for infringement: the power which the Government do not have under the ECA.
However, many copyright-owners in the creative industries are very concerned even—we heard concern expressed earlier, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—that secondary legislation will be used under the ECA, not least the Law Society, of which I am a member. Secondary legislation is difficult to review or challenge, even though subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses. This is what the Alliance for the Protection of Copyright says: “However, our support”, for Clause 66,
“should not be read as support for the introduction via secondary legislation of the exceptions proposed in the recent Copyright Consultation. Given the potential negative consequences”—
for UK creators associated with “these proposals” changes,
“should … be introduced via primary legislation allowing parliamentarians’ full and proper scrutiny”.
Of course, as I said earlier, following Hargreaves the Government proposed, and have started implementing, a copyright hub that without legislation and by the voluntary participation of rights-holders and users is intended to solve the problems perceived by Hargreaves, at which the exceptions by and large are directed. Therefore, there are many who claim that those exceptions are unnecessary.
However, even if secured by secondary legislation, exceptions that impact so greatly on the UK’s creative industry sector should not be bundled in a take-it-or- leave-it fashion, which would not allow the varying impacts of such proposals on separate creative sectors to be appropriately taken into account. At the very least, they should be accompanied by individual impact assessments and introduced in separate SIs. In the recent Modernising Copyright White Paper, it is stated that the Government intend to make changes to copyright exceptions in the smallest number of statutory instruments. Therefore, if secondary legislation is to be used, each proposed exception to copyright should be subject to an individual statutory instrument, contrary to that statement. Rights holders are concerned that the introduction of any new copyright exceptions, whether through Clause 66 or the ECA, must be done through careful consideration of each individual exception.
The other possibility—that exceptions be bundled together in a single statutory instrument—would prevent Parliament being able to accept some changes while rejecting others. Such a take-it-or-leave-it approach to copyright reform is wholly unsuited to the nuance and detail of the subject and risks there being a fudge across a number of different issues—for example, conflating questions around photocopying educational text books with the question of burning CDs.
There may, however, be some exceptions which are linked and which could be dealt with together. Some of the exceptions are interrelated. For example, I gather that the IPO believes that the exception on private study links with the exception for research and with the exception which permits libraries to copy for a researcher. Therefore, there is not an unreasonable demand where there are links. It will be important to ensure that changes across exceptions are consistent, and separate SIs for each proposed change could lead to problems of inconsistent law.
Each proposed exception should have its own associated economic impact assessment. As the economic evidence which accompanied the Hargreaves review of IP and growth sadly demonstrated, the economic analysis underpinning some proposed changes to copyright is either lacking or flawed. Officials have indicated that new impact assessments will be published alongside any proposed changes to copyright, and I would certainly welcome reassurance from the Minister that that will be the case. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 28JA. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I have discussed the issue of separate statutory instruments for each exception. As he said, they may have totally different effects and it would be quite difficult for the House to debate one single compendium of exceptions when they may involve very different interests and very different impacts. Mentioning impacts leads me to say that, if there are to be separate statutory instruments for each change passed under this clause, there should be separate impact statements.
Some weeks ago, I collected the impact statement for this Bill from the Printed Paper Office. I have not attempted to weigh it but it is about two inches thick and I must confess that I have not waded through it. Of course, the Bill contains a whole range of issues but one realises that, when departments produce impact assessments on this scale, you have to be a very devoted Peer and have plenty of time to be able to make anything of them. I suspect that some of the changes that may be envisaged as being achieved by order under this clause may be wholly unexceptionable, in which case so be it. However, there may be some which will be very controversial and should be properly debated, in which case they should have a separate impact assessment. That is the burden of the amendment to which I have put my name and I hope that the Minister will take account of it when he responds.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 28G, 28H and 28J first. These amendments are all interconnected.
As set out in the response to their consultation on copyright, the Government plan to make changes to copyright exceptions. They have said that they will make these changes via secondary legislation, and it is the Government’s intention to do so using the powers that exist under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, a point that I alluded to earlier this afternoon.
I assure colleagues that the Government will not use Clause 66 to make these planned changes. Bundling any statutory instruments that are needed to implement the proposed changes to copyright exceptions is therefore an issue that goes beyondthis Bill.
However, the Government recognise the concerns laid out in these amendments, particularly in eloquent speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin. Accordingly, in my capacity as Intellectual Property Minister with responsibility for implementing the Government’s policy decisions on copyright exceptions, I will commit to look at how the bundling of statutory instruments could be structured when they are brought to Parliament.
The Government appreciate and support noble Lords’ concerns about allowing adequate time for parliamentary debate and scrutiny. Detailed examination of legislation is the business of the House and I want to make sure that we can create that opportunity. In tandem, in relation to good practice with regard to statutory instruments, the Government are mindful of the views of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which Members of both Houses sit.
The Government will also have to consider the potential need to ensure that where exceptions are inter-related they can be scrutinised together. For example, I understand that the copyright exception on private study links with the exception for research and that which permits libraries to copy for the researcher. In implementing these changes, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Government will also need to be mindful of the administrative burden on creators, businesses and users of copyright exceptions, particularly private individuals, small and medium-sized enterprises, schools and academics.
Finally, when I bring forward the regulations on copyright exceptions, I will provide an explanation in an Explanatory Memorandum setting out the reasons for any bundling of statutory instruments.
Amendment 28JA seeks to ensure that the full effects of any use of this clause are made available for scrutiny. Impact assessments play an important role in the scrutiny of law making. Every statutory instrument laid before this House must be accompanied by an impact assessment. I therefore assure the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that an impact assessment will be published for each and every use of this clause.
The Government are aware of and sensitive to the strength of feeling around some of the issues raised by these amendments. I hope that noble Lords can be assured that the Government have considered these amendments very carefully and that in light of the above they will be content not to press their amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I think we are on a bit of a roll. We had better stay here for the rest of the evening and finish off Part 6. We seem to have gone from the beginning of Clause 66 and the Minister's assurances about looking at an amendment that will reflect the previous penalties amendment, to assurances that the Minister will look at this in his capacity as Intellectual Property Minister. He will look at how best these can be dealt with and they will not automatically be put into one bundle.
I understand exactly the point the Minister made about some being linked. Indeed, I made that point when I introduced the amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Does the noble Lord not think that we should be asking a little more from the Minister? We should be asking for an assurance that the presumption will be that statutory instruments will not be bundled and that they will be taken together only when there is a compelling reason by virtue of the interrelatedness of their contents.
Lord Clement-Jones
That is a very fair formulation. Certainly, I was also reassured that the Minister confirmed that there would be an impact assessment for each and every one of the uses of the ECA in these circumstances. I look forward to the proper use of House of Lords scrutiny in these circumstances, to which the Minister alluded, because our scrutiny would be extremely valuable. The interpretation that I put on the Minister’s very useful assurances is very much that formulated by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, so perhaps if the Minister disagrees with that he could indicate that at the same time.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That is not exactly how I see it. I confirm that we do not want to prejudge any consideration. This is an ongoing discussion. There will not be a presumption on bundling; we want to talk about this further. So I do not particularly adhere to what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was saying.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, the Minister just said that there will be no presumption on bundling, which is a very useful assurance. If I can take that from the table, that might be the most useful way forward. It would be very helpful if, before Report, the Minister could consider this matter further. Then, if such amendments are tabled again on Report, he can consider precisely how he thinks the statutory instruments can be put together, giving us further information about the nature—I shall not use the word bundling—of how those instruments are put forward for these exceptions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Perhaps I could just clarify the situation by saying that there is no intention to deliberately bundle.
Lord Clement-Jones
I thank the Minister. So if I see deliberate bundling, we will know that this is completely wrong and should never have happened. In those circumstances, I withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, before introducing amendments to this clause, I should like first to set out how the provisions in this clause will work. This is a complex area, and I understand some greater clarity may be helpful. At present, certain unpublished works that were created before 1 August 1989 remain in copyright until 2039. This is because of transitional provisions applying when the 1988 copyright Act was introduced. The transitional provisions mean that works such as centuries’ old unpublished letters or manuscripts remain in copyright until 2039. This is far beyond the standard terms of copyright required by the EU term directive 2006. Many of these works are orphan because it is not possible to contact the rights holder, possibly now a long-lost historical figure, to ask permission to reproduce them.
To illustrate the scale of the problem, the National Archives estimate that around 12 million or 42% of the 30 million archival items held in English and Welsh public archives predate 1891. The vast majority of these are thought to be unpublished and would therefore remain in copyright until 2039 under the current law. Clause 67 will allow the Secretary of State to reduce the length of copyright term for these works. But, and importantly, the length of term cannot be reduced beyond the minimum requirements of the term directive. I should like to stress that it is only when the date 2039 is later than the date that the term directive would produce that any reduction in term would occur, such as when 2039 gives more than life plus 70 years for an unpublished literary work by a known author.
For example, the only literary works that could have their terms reduced will be those where the known author died before 1969 or, in the case of unknown authors, where the work was created before 1969. This is because unpublished literary works by known authors will receive copyright protection for the duration of their life plus 70 years from the year they died. Unpublished literary works by unknown authors will receive protection for 70 years from the year the work was created.
In the case of photographs, the only ones which could potentially be subject to a reduction in term are unpublished photographs taken between 1 June 1957 and 1 January 1969. Where the photographer is known and died before 1 January 1969, the new term would become 70 years from the year the photographer died. If the photographer is unknown, the term would be 70 years from the year the photograph was created.
The term directive specifies different terms for different types of works in different circumstances so it is not possible to list them all now. I have a more detailed note available here today, which I will also place in the House Library, of what this means for different works. Many of the works that currently enjoy a longer term of copyright than that required by the term directive are orphan works. Reducing the term of copyright to the usual levels will bring many of these works out of copyright. This will reduce the overall number of works classed as orphan and is part of the solution to the orphan works problem.
The Government are bringing forward two amendments to Clause 67. This follows further consideration on the scope of the clause and in response to the observations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report published on 14 December 2012. We accept that the scope of this clause would benefit from clarification. The amendments will therefore remove the references to “published but anonymous or pseudonymous” works and clarify that the power is limited by the EU Term Directive 2006. We have concluded that most anonymous and pseudonymous published works are unlikely to be subject to the 2039 transitional provisions. As such, these types of work need not be included in the scope of the power. This amendment means that Clause 67 now applies only to unpublished works, subject to the transitional provisions that currently enjoy copyright protection for longer than the standard periods of protection specified in the term directive.
The second amendment makes clear that no work will receive a shorter term of copyright than set out in the term directive. This has always been implicit in this power; this amendment simply provides clarity by putting the matter beyond any doubt. I hope that in the light of what I have said noble Lords will support these amendments. I commend the clause to the Committee. I beg to move Amendment 28JB.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, the Minister introduced his amendment very fairly but I must admit that Clause 67 still baffles me. I think that I understand the term directive. The Minister has produced a splendid schematic of all the different rights that might be affected in these circumstances, especially where copyright will be brought back from 2039. However, I am still baffled to some degree as to why we need to go the whole hog as regards Clause 67. Technically, I suppose that I am speaking to the clause stand part debate. Originally, the clause was much more objectionable. It is now much more clearly tied to the term directive. However, what is the real motivation of the clause? I think that all of us are very sympathetic to the idea of medieval manuscripts and other old material being taken out of copyright so that they can be digitised. However, the museums, the British Library and others have made the point—whether publicly or otherwise—that in practice there are no copyright claims or difficulties and that by and large they have gone ahead and digitised and have not had any problems in doing so.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, in moving Amendment 28KA, I shall speak also to Amendments 28LA and 28LB. These amendments provide for implementation of the EU orphaned works directive in substitution for the Government’s proposals. The directive provides for non-commercial use of orphan works by cultural institutions. Although the permitted use is non-commercial, the directive allows sales to recover costs. The major question here is why we are going further than the EU orphan works directive, which EU countries have to implement within two years of this September when the directive was passed. It specifically makes provision for museums, galleries, archives and libraries, educational establishments and public service broadcasts to make use of orphan works. These are all essentially cultural institutions. It may not be a perfect directive at this stage, but surely if it will apply in 27 countries, we should build on it. We can, of course, use the new digital hub to good advantage when applying the provisions of the directive.
The Government’s proposals under Clause 68 go much further by permitting exploitation for commercial purposes, which is a matter of real concern to many, particularly the creators of images, where the metadata has been stripped and attribution lost. That is the reason that equivalent provisions failed to get through Parliament under the Digital Economy Bill before the previous general election.
Has no account been taken of photographers’ strong concerns, voiced during the passage of the Bill and in the Hargreaves consultation? The impetus for orphan work licensing comes largely from cultural institutions. The provisions of the directive, therefore, should largely satisfy the need for orphan licensing among those institutions. On 13 September 2012, the orphan works directive was passed, and it must be implemented within two years. Digitisation for preservation and replacement of any work and supplying copies of unpublished work to other libraries, unless the author has forbidden it, is already permitted under current UK copyright law.
On the other hand, the proposed measure in Clause 68 is designed to make orphan works available for commercial exploitation. That measure would deprive rights holders of their property simply because they have not been found by the would-be user of their work, although the Government have not yet formulated the rules and do not intend to publish them until after the measure has been enacted. Being exercisable by secondary legislation, they will not be fully subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Those are some of the problems which are not dealt with in the measure. Many works contain other copyright works, such as photographs or illustrations. Unlike the EU directive, there is nothing to protect the owners of those copyrights if the overall work is declared an orphan. Diligent search has been used in a number of fields for many years and produces a high level of false orphans. That is because copyright does not have to be registered and there are no definitive registries of the ownership of copyright works. Some types of works, such as photographs and illustrations, are especially easy to separate from the information about their creators—I mentioned the issues about metadata earlier. In particular, foreign copyright holders are likely to be unaware of the provisions and so will be more likely to lose out as others exploit their works commercially in the UK. Primary legislation should not allow orphan works provisions beyond the EU orphan works directive until it has been drafted to give the same standard of protection to creators as are provided under the directive.
Great concerns have been expressed not only by photographers but by a whole range of others, such as AP, British Pathé, Getty Images, ITN, the Press Association and Thomson Reuters, which are UK, European and worldwide news agencies and audiovisual archives; and FOCAL International, which is the industry body representing commercial and audiovisual archives throughout the world.
The provisions in the clause are premature and should not be introduced in the Bill. If there are flaws in the directive—there may well be—surely we should work on them rather than erecting a totally separate definition of orphan works, which will have few equivalents anywhere else in the world and will certainly be of no use in international rights clearance. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 28LA and 28LB, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has introduced. I see these issues very differently from the way that he does. I am sure that he would agree that it would be a pity if we in the Committee excessively polarised the interests of contemporary creators against those of our great cultural institutions and the public, who benefit from the work of those institutions and could benefit so much more if a larger part of their collections were to be made accessible.
The simple answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, both on Second Reading and just now—why we should go beyond the provisions of the European Union orphan works directive—is simply that the directive does not go far enough; it is too limited. Only public sector bodies and educational establishments, not companies, can benefit. That means that public/private partnerships are prevented. Even cultural bodies, are prevented from working in partnership with the private sector. Mass digitisation, which would confer very great benefits for the public, is best carried out with private sector contractors and partners. In that way, the production is made possible for global educational markets.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, Amendment 28LA would limit the scope of the UK orphan works scheme to that of the EU directive on orphan works. The proposed UK scheme in Clause 68 is intended to complement the EU directive. The exception provided for in the directive is more narrowly focused on enabling the cultural use of orphan works, specifically the digitisation of, and cross-border online access to, orphan works in libraries and archives. The directive does not prohibit the UK developing a domestic scheme for licensing orphan works within the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, raised the issue of whether the EU directive can be widely used. I agree that the range of the EU directive is extremely limited. The same sentiments were expressed by my noble friend Lady Brinton. It would not be adequate for the purposes of copyright licensing as proposed by Richard Hooper’s work. Use of orphan works under the directive is limited to publicly accessible libraries, archives and public-sector broadcasters. The directive also allows for the generation of revenue to cover only the costs of digitising orphan works that are made available to the public. This does not allow any kind of distribution, such as publication in a book or TV programme. The directive also does not cover photographs, which make up a significant proportion of the orphan works held by archives, libraries and museums.
The Government’s proposals are about opening up the commercial and economic potential of orphan works. It was clear from the responses to the Government’s copyright consultation that there are many desirable uses that could be made of orphan works which would have a commercial element—for example, reproductions in exhibition catalogues, books or television documentaries.
Because the UK scheme would allow broader commercial as well as non-commercial use, we are proposing a key extra safeguard which is not in the directive. This is the requirement for the diligent search to be verified by an independent authorising body. Allowing commercial use of orphan works will not undercut the market for non-orphan works. In many cases, there is unlikely to be a comparable non-orphan work that could be used instead—for example, unique records of historical events. In any event, the Government’s proposals will provide for remuneration to be set at a rate appropriate for the type of work and its proposed use.
Amendment 28LB would remove four paragraphs from Clause 68 in respect of the proposed orphan works scheme. These paragraphs set out various issues that the regulations either must or may cover and contain the key safeguards for rights holders that will underpin the scheme. This includes the fundamental safeguard that a diligent search for rights holders must have been undertaken before a work can qualify as orphan. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether foreign rights holders would lose out. I can confirm that a diligent search will be needed to check for foreign rights holders, too.
Another key safeguard that the amendment would remove is the requirement that the orphan works authorising body must be independent and therefore cannot license itself to use an orphan work. The regulations could still contain such safeguards even if they were removed from the Bill. However, the Government’s view is that these safeguards are such an integral part of the proposals for an orphan works scheme that they should be set out in the primary legislation.
I pick up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, raised about the future of photography libraries. The orphan works scheme will help photo libraries because it will enable them to use orphan works legally. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also raised the issue of photographers, and I can assure him that photographers’ interests will be taken into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, recognised that there is a difficult distinction to be made between commercial and non-commercial uses, and I thank her for that helpful intervention.
In the light of the above, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and other noble Lords for their not always helpful responses. I was very struck, however, and think it very telling that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, raised the concerns of photographers. That is really at the heart of much of the objection to the proposals for the orphan works legislation, but it does go wider. As I mentioned earlier, it extends to the news agencies and photo libraries, which have very strong concerns, particularly because at the moment—and despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said—we do not have the copyright hub fully in place. That would make a huge difference to the ability to carry out diligent search and identify circumstances where metadata has been stripped from contemporary photographs, which have effectively been turned into orphans. This is one of the problems. Photographers are worried about the possibility of a cynical exercise whereby a photograph is turned into an orphan by stripping the metadata, and, lo and behold, the diligence search is inadequate and it is treated as an orphan. There are uses for commercial purposes, not just by cuddly museums, universities and cultural institutions making an honest penny out of books in their shops, but by fully commercial publishers. So there is considerable concern, and it is not a question of polarising the debate but recognising the concerns underlying these orphan works proposals, which are held by substantial numbers of creators and rights holders. The European directive is, as I said clearly, not perfect in every respect, but to allay the fears of many it is better to build on that than have legislation that explicitly goes far beyond what has been said.
Clearly, I will not win the argument today—certainly not in the light of the Minister’s response. I am worried about foreign rights holders; I do not believe that diligent search will be that straightforward where foreign rights are concerned. I think that the IPO will find that a lot of concern is expressed as the regulations and the clause come into effect. It has already been expressed in letters to the Secretary of State and to the former Intellectual Property Minister. I suspect that the volume of correspondence from those foreign rights holders will increase over time.
I will read carefully what everyone has had to say. It may even be that I come back with a suitable response on various issues that have been raised here today. I believe that digitisation is a great deal more straightforward than it has been alleged today. For instance, my noble friend spent most of the time arguing for orphan works. At no point in this debate have I argued against the concept of orphan works; I think that they could be usefully employed, constrained within the right limits. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thought that the Committee might appreciate, rather than approve, a rather different approach to the clause, trying to make the best of what I previously described as not optimum relative to the orphan works directive.
A number of matters should be written into the Bill. That is essentially what I propose in my Amendments 28L and 28M to 28S, 30 to 32 and 57. Let us assume that it is possible to amend the orphan works provisions satisfactorily. The most important question in that context was how the licensing system needs to operate. The system needs adequately to protect the interests of the orphan works copyright owners and to be efficient and cost-effective. It is vital that the operation of a licensing system is planned in a pragmatic way that considers the needs of different licensees of orphan works. One way to ensure the efficiency of the system is to make the best use of the existing licensing systems of collecting societies. Collecting societies are in a position to process complex usage data and allocate fees for such licences as broadcasters.
UK Music and the Publishers Association, which are supporting the amendments, are keen that the Government fully explore the way that collecting societies participate in the licensing process. It is important that any orphan works licensing scheme includes certain safeguards to protect the authors’ rights. The regulations described in new Section 116A set out certain conditions under which a licence to use an orphaned work may be granted. However, there is not enough detail in the Bill. The amendments provide that detail. To avoid confusion, I should say that Amendment 28S is part of this group.
First, the licensing body must be representative of a substantial number of copyright owners for the type of work for which a licence is to be granted. It must not represent just a minority of relevant creators. It is not at all clear who or what the person or persons authorised to grant licences under the new Section 116A will be. Should it not be a relevant collecting society, rather than the UK Copyright Tribunal?
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, in the interests of time, I really will just say “me too”. I very much support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I realise that I failed to speak to Amendment 30, so if I may I will just finish this group.
An orphan works license must provide remuneration for relevant rights holders, specifically the holding of money in escrow to remunerate rights holders who come forward within a certain time period. New Section 116C(4) of the Bill states:
“The regulations must provide for the treatment of any royalties or other sums paid in respect of a licence”.
That is welcome, but could be much clearer using the more broadly recognised term of “remuneration”. While royalties are common in the music industry, in the publishing industry royalties are used to describe payment made solely to authors. The word “remuneration” is also preferable for the avoidance of doubt as distinct from compensation, which would suggest a need for rights holders to prove harm before being able to receive their monies.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I want to make it clear that we on this side support the ECL approach in general. The reason for supporting these particular amendments is to make sure that the issues that they raise are probed. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
However, it is worth putting on the record that there are still a lot of reservations from individual authors and photographers about the potential impact of an ECL scheme, particularly where there is not a collecting society—
Lord Clement-Jones
If I can clarify, we are still on orphan works amendments, which are designed to improve the orphan works provisions in the clause.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Before the Minister responds, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, apologised that she had to depart from the Committee because of a commitment, but she asked me to say that, as chair of the British Library, she associated herself with the points that I put forward in my remarks.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the amendments cover both the scope and detail of the proposals for a UK orphan works scheme. Amendment 28L would limit who could be authorised to grant licences to use an orphan work and de facto would mean that only a collecting society already operating in the sector could be authorised to grant licences. The amendment assumes that all orphan works will be licensed by collecting societies. However, many orphan works are simply not of a type that is licensed collectively—unpublished works, diaries, old photographs and oral history recordings, for example. There will therefore need to be a separate independent authorising body for orphan works which are not covered by any collecting society.
Amendment 28M seeks to make clear that the orphan works scheme applies to a work where there are multiple rights owners and one or more of these are not known or cannot be traced. The Bill already makes provision for this. The requirement for a diligent search for the copyright owner will be described in greater detail in the regulations. This will include all relevant rights-holders where there is more than one.
Amendment 28N would mean that a separate diligent search had to be undertaken for every orphan work that someone wants to use. The clause already provides that a work must have been subject to a diligent search for the rights holders before it can qualify as an orphan work. However, requiring a separate diligent search for each individual orphan work could result in potential licensees having to conduct repetitious searches. For example, five poems by the same poet whose name is known, published by the same publisher, would require five separate diligent searches.
Amendment 28P is concerned with creators who have assigned some or all of their copyright in a work that goes on to be a suspected orphan work. The diligent search for rights holders will cover all potential rights holders in a work, including the creator. This amendment would also provide an author with a new right to remuneration for the use of an orphan work, even when the author had assigned the relevant copyright in the work to someone else. Only those who are rights holders will be entitled to remuneration for the use of an orphan work. This is exactly the same as for non-orphan works.
Amendments 28Q and 52 seek to clarify what the term “authorised” means in this subsection. In particular, they seek to ensure that those authorised to license orphan works cannot grant themselves a licence. This is an important point and one on which the clause is already clear—in new Section 116A(5)(c) introduced in Clause 68. Any body authorised to issue orphan works licences cannot license themselves to use an orphan work.
Amendment 28R would mean that a licence to use an orphan work must be time-limited and not run beyond the copyright term in a work. I can confirm that regulations will provide for limits for orphan works licences. These will be appropriate to the type of use being licensed and could be a time limit or a limit according to intended use—for example, a print run. In reality, sometimes it will not be possible to tell whether the copyright in an orphan work has expired.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones spoke to Amendment 28S, which I shall address at this point. The amendment seeks to clarify that orphan work licences can be granted even when it is not known whether an exclusive licence has been granted. An orphan works licence may be granted where a diligent search does not find all the relevant rights holders, including an exclusive licensee. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, raised this particular issue. Where the diligent search reveals the existence of an exclusive licence, the work will not qualify as an orphan work. Where an orphan works licence is granted following a diligent search but subsequently an exclusive licence holder appears, the exclusive licence holder will be treated in the same way as any other absent rights holder that appears. The detail of this will be set out in the regulations. That is why the clause specifically applies to cases where it is uncertain where the copyright subsists.
I turn to Amendment 30. This concerns the very important issue of remuneration being set aside for rights holders when an orphan works licence is granted. I can set on the record that the regulations will provide for the treatment of remuneration. I also draw my noble friend’s attention to the wording in the clause:
“The regulations must provide for the treatment of any royalties or other sums paid in respect of a licence”.
I believe that the term “royalties” is not used in all sectors but it is understood in the Bill to mean the same as “remuneration”. The phrase “other sums” would also cover any other types of fees to be set aside for rights holders. Therefore, the Government’s view is that the clause already provides for remuneration to be dealt with by the regulations.
I should like to pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. He asked whether there will be proportionality in undertaking a diligent search. I hope that I have that right. Much work is already being undertaken in diligent search work for different types of work. This is being considered by the working group, which includes representatives of museums, libraries and archives.
I hope that in the light of the explanations and assurances that I have given, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. His speech will certainly need some studying but he gave a number of assurances which were very helpful, particularly those concerning the content of the regulation, the explicit statements about what the regulations will contain and, for the purposes of Pepper v Hart, how the relevant provisions should be interpreted as far as remuneration is concerned. Therefore, I think that there are some useful points in there.
I must disagree with the Minister and with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about the way that one interprets each individual orphan work in terms of the clause. If it were going to be laborious, there is a point to be made there. But this is designed simply to make sure that there is no job lot of orphan works clearance; then the licensee can simply say, “We did our best, but it was a bit of a potpourri or collection of works that we had to clear, so we took a few here and there”—rather like a raffle. There is a point to be made there, and it needs clarifying still, so I may come back to it. The wording may not be sufficiently clear, but it is one of the real issues that many rights holders have, that everything will be thrown into a pot and some search will be made but it will not be sufficiently diligent because it will not have been done in respect of each individual work.
I thank the Minister for that response. I thought that it was a useful mini-debate about the way in which the orphan works provisions can be improved. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I move this amendment on the basis that noble Lords wish to carry on beyond eight o’clock. As I say, my speech will last seven or eight minutes. This group is entirely devoted to the issue of extended collective licensing and seeks to amend Clause 68. First, I will deal with Amendments 28T to 28Y and 52 to 56. Then I will speak to Amendments 28SA and 28AA.
Extended collective licensing is a system whereby a collecting society can extend its licences to include the works of non-members. Non-members will be able to opt out of the licence if they choose. There are mixed views ranging from tepid to hostile in the creative industries. Nevertheless, all see the following safeguards as crucial in any ECL system that is introduced. Extended collective licences must be permitted only in certain strictly controlled circumstances. For example, a collecting society that grants them must be representative of rights owners in the field. Licences must be granted on a scheme-by-scheme basis and the mechanics of opting out should be clearly prescribed. Although the Government’s policy documents and verbal assurances have indicated that such strict conditions will be imposed, they have not been placed in the Bill. This is alarming for rights holders as they therefore do not have a cast-iron, future-proofed assurance that the power in the Bill will not at some indefinite point be used in a way that results in secondary legislation unfairly interfering with their exclusive rights, which are the preserve of primary legislation.
Extended collective licensing allows for collective licences to be granted by a collecting society in respect of all works of the type for which it is authorised whether or not it has the mandate with respect to each individual work. So, for example, a collecting society for publishers could be granted the ability to license literary works by publishers with whom it did not have a direct relationship. ECL schemes would also allow collecting societies to issue non-exclusive licences for particular uses of works beyond the uses covered by the scope of its rights holder mandate. So, for example, a society could issue a licence to a third party to allow the digital reproduction of works by a member publisher even where its mandate did not provide for this use. As such, ECL can potentially deprive rights holders of the ability to make a choice as to how their work is exploited. Collecting societies are permitted to go beyond the scope of mandated agreements and therefore act without the direct permission, and perhaps without the direct knowledge, of the rights holder. The rights holder who wishes at the outset not to be subject to such treatment would be required to opt out of the licensing scheme—the direct opposite of the present situation whereby they opt in. This important shift of onus on rights holders is a serious inversion of their position and requires a greater level of vigilance and monitoring. For many smaller rights holders this may well prove a very onerous burden.
If ECL is to be introduced, the creative industries therefore believe it is vital that additional safeguards are set out in the Bill to protect rights holders as much as possible from unauthorised and undesired use of their works. The Publishers Association, UK Music and many others believe that a licensing body should be granted an extended collective licence only if the following conditions are satisfied. First, the licensing body is significantly representative of UK rights holders in the field concerned. Secondly, the authorised licensing body has adopted a code of practice which gives members and non-members equal rights. Thirdly, an application has been made and a separate licence granted for different uses of works. Fourthly, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the licensing body is acting with the approval of its membership. Fifthly, members and other interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on ECL applications under consideration by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 28SA adds necessary safeguards to the ECL provisions in new Section 116B. A licence limited to the provisions as drafted could breach the requirements of the Berne Convention and TRIPS agreement in relation to non-UK works. This is inherent in ECL and cannot be cured. Nevertheless, this amendment gives extra protection to right holders if ECL is introduced. It is argued that copyright licensing is administratively burdensome on those who wish to use copyright works and should be streamlined. ECL is presented as the means by which the Government can sort out this situation. However, the industry is rapidly bringing its own digital solutions to the marketplace.
A collective licensing scheme is a voluntary arrangement in which owners of a particular kind of copyright authorise a collecting society to enforce those copyrights on their behalf. Yet the scheme proposed in Clause 68 resembles a form of compulsory licensing under which the Government will authorise a licensing body to grant licences for works which neither it, nor anyone who has authorised it, owns. ECL is stated to be voluntary on the part of a rights owner in that he can opt out of the scheme after it has come into being.
However, opting out is possible only if a rights owner knows about the scheme and how it may license its works. Those unlikely to know about ECL schemes licensing their works will include amateur creators whose works are on the internet, although they are not published commercially, and foreign rights holders. In the view of many, the existence of such a body will artificially distort the market for rights, as its rates would become the de facto standard against which negotiations would take place.
Properly, ECL refers to a statutory scheme that extends the collective licence to those rights owners who have chosen not to join the scheme. It is impossible to extend a collective licence that does not exist. Several economically significant sectors within the current creative industries have no collective licensing scheme at all. That includes news clips, films, photographs and illustrations. Those who have argued for ECL point to the Nordic countries, where there are ECL schemes. However, those schemes are very limited in their type of work and rights licence, and there are major differences between the small Nordic and large UK copyright markets.
The Nordic collecting societies are well regulated, and the extended collective licence schemes are narrowly limited in scope and subject to strict parliamentary scrutiny. Cinematographic and dramatic works, as well as computer programs, all of which are types of work of which minor use has great commercial value to the copyright owner, are generally excluded. However, the UK proposal is not limited in scope with respect to either use or types of work.
Any introduction of an ECL scheme must be compliant with the UK's international obligations, including the three-step test. The proposals are not compliant in special cases, the first step; can conflict with normal exploitation of the work, the second step; and can unreasonably prejudice the legitimate expectations of creators, the third step. It is inevitable that, if passed, the provisions will be challenged in the courts.
Finally, ECL is proposed to solve perceived copyright licensing problems, which the copyright hub, to which I and many other noble Lords referred, is intended to solve on the basis of voluntary participation without confiscation of property rights by secondary legislation or any legislation. If ECL is proposed again, surely the primary legislation must contain the minimum safeguards to comply with international norms.
I apologise for the length of my speech, but I did warn noble Lords. Amendment 28AA was proposed by the Association of Authors’ Agents, which is a voluntary trade association whose membership comprises 102 British literary agencies. It suggests that there should be a requirement in the Bill that customary warranties be made to any users being granted licences to use works under an ECL scheme. In a publishing contract, an author usually makes the following warranties to the publisher: that he has full right to enter into the agreement; that the work is an original work written by the author; that the work in no way infringes any existing copyright; that the work contains nothing unlawful, indecent or libellous; that it does not infringe any right of privacy, confidentiality or intellectual property rights; and that any recipe, formula or instruction contained in the work is accurate and is not injurious to the user.
Without those warranties, it is difficult for works to be exploited commercially. There needs to be some provision for at least the basic warranties to be provided under an ECL scheme.
Finally—as your Lordships will be pleased to hear—on Amendment 20AB, the schedule sets out some welcome provisions for any orphan works or extended collective licensing schemes that come into force. However, as Sections 116A and 116B make clear, orphan works and ECL are two quite separate licensing schemes, governed by different qualifying criteria, authorisation processes and provisions. The schemes are not interdependent in any way. For the avoidance of doubt and to reinforce the distinction between the two schemes, I have tabled Amendment 20AB. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
Very briefly, because the hour is late, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said. It is unsatisfactory to be discussing a cornerstone of the Bill at the fag end of the Committee, when we know that the Committee normally finishes at 7.45 pm.
There were many useful nuggets in what the Minister had to say. Some of the detail he gave was very useful, but I was particularly interested in his affirmation that ECL was not useable for rights outside the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, seemed to think that it had that flexibility, but it does not. That is what makes it an unsatisfactory arrangement and why many people object to it. It is setting up a separate UK situation which eventually, I hope, will be overtaken by an EU directive on ECL, so in many ways ECL is premature.
However, it is far too late to talk at length about the principles of ECL. My amendments tried to improve the scheme. The Minister has elucidated quite a lot. I will read Hansard with great interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.