header-logo header-logo

Green light for Hargreaves

11 August 2011
Issue: 7478 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Wide-ranging reforms are to be introduced to copyright law, including the launch of a digital copyright exchange in the UK

Business Secretary, Vince Cable has accepted all 10 recommendations made by Professor Hargreaves in his independent review in May.

This means it will be lawful for individuals who have bought CDs and DVDs to copy their contents onto a computer or iPod, and lawful for performing artists to parody someone else’s work without first seeking copyright permission.

New licensing procedures will be introduced to release “orphan” works whose copyright owners are unknown. The law on search and analysis techniques known as “text and data mining” will be relaxed to give researchers greater access to data.

The government will announce further details of the digital copyright exchange—a digital market place where copyright licences can be readily bought and sold—later this year.

Martyn Fish, partner at HGF Law, said: “I find it difficult to see how the digital copyright exchange will work in practice—what kind of works will be covered?

“It will also be difficult to have a ‘standard’ licence for all digital copyright that can be the basis of a copyright exchange. The idea of a small claims track for IP disputes is also problematic. Just because a claim has a value of less than £5,000 does not mean that it is a straightforward case. The small claims track is just not an appropriate forum for IP disputes.”

Neville Cordell, IP partner at Allen & Overy, said: “A quiet, understated, typically British revolution in copyright law is taking place.”

While many people who make back-up copies of music, films and software will have breached copyright laws, not all home copying is infringement, said Guy Wilmot, solicitor at Russell-Cooke LLP.

“Many copyright licences for content do allow back-up copies, also breach of copyright by copying within a household is rarely if ever enforced.

“The argument is that the problem for innovation is that companies are cautious about developing technology to facilitate home back-up copying as they fear legal consequences such as being found to be a ‘secondary infringer’ (ie allowing or assisting breaches of copyright) however some caution is advised as to whether this is really an issue as the same rules never stopped double-tape decks from being sold.”

Issue: 7478 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll