Publishers demand UK copyright bill changes
A group of media publishers have claimed that three copyright provisions in draft UK legislation are unlawful—and have demanded their deletion.
In a letter sent to business secretary Vince Cable on January 14, the International Media & Archive Consortium said it will ask a judge to review clauses 66, 67 and 68 in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (ERF) if their demands go unanswered.
The consortium, which represents companies such as Thomson Reuters and Getty Images, is particularly worried that the government can amend parts of the act, which is in the final stages of approval at the House of Lords (HoL), without full parliamentary scrutiny.
Under clause 66, which covers exceptions to copyright (uses of work without requiring the owner’s consent), the business secretary can use a statutory instrument (SI) to add or remove exceptions. An SI is a form of secondary legislation allowing new provisions to be incorporated into legislation without parliament passing a new act.
In the letter, from Getty’s corporate counsel Jonathan Lockwood, the parties say they have “fundamental and serious concerns about the true scope of the powers proposed by clause 66, whether those powers are indeed ones that already exist under the ECA [European Communities Act]1972, and consequently the lawfulness and propriety o the action taken to promote clause 66 in the ERR bill in its current form”.
Clause 66 should be replaced with a clause covering the government’s “stated aim of regulating penalties for copyright infringement”, the letter says.
The publishers are also unhappy about clause 67, which allows the government to reduce the duration of copyright in some cases, such as for orphan works. They warn that the lack of detail in the draft could remove legitimate rights from other content owners.
They object to clause 68—which allows collecting agencies to automatically gather royalties on behalf of rights holders that are not their members—on the grounds that it would introduce “compulsory” licensing.
Clause 66 of the bill will undoubtedly alarm many rights holders, as it potentially gives ministers wide-ranging powers to introduce significant new exceptions to copyright and performers’ rights without full and proper parliamentary scrutiny, said Mark Dennis, senior associate at Taylor Wessing LLP in London. .
“While both Houses of Parliament would need to approve any such SI before it could become law, parliament could only accept or reject the proposed statutory instrument, and would not be able to amend it. As such, the chance for proper debate on these important issues could be lost.”
The publishers are angry that Cable did not amend the three clauses following their written opposition to them before the bill’s second reading at the HoL in November last year. They want a response to their letter within 14 days.
The ERF bill, first introduced into parliament in May 2012, was a response to the so-called Hargreaves Review in May of the previous year. Professor Ian Hargreaves recommended 10 ways of reforming the UK's copyright system, including relaxing the rules on private copying, and the government broadly accepted the suggestions in August 2011. It is working to implement them now.
