Orphan Works - the new law in the UK

My social media feeds have been full links to alarmist stories about a recent change to UK copyright law that allows for the licensing of orphan works. Photographers have been particularly concerned after one site (which I won't dignify with a link) used the headline "ALL your pics belong to everyone now". So much alarm has been created that the UK's intellectual property office felt moved to publish a PDF debunking some of the myths that have arisen. I was waiting until the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 was published on the government's legislation website before making my own comment.

The problem of orphan works is well known. Copyright lasts for a long time. In the UK it will usually be for 70 years after the death of the author. Discovering the author of a work to discover whether it is, or is not, protected by copyright can be difficult, let alone discovering the present owner of that copyright in order to ask them for a licence. The effect of that is that many works are either not used, or used only by organisations that care little about copyright on the ask forgiveness not permission principle.

There are radical solutions to this problem, for example we could require that copyright owners register their copyrights in order to enforce them, as the United States did until relatively recently. Or we could adopt William Patry's more modest proposal where no registration would be required for an initial, but relatively short, copyright term. To extend the life of a work's copyright, the copyright owner would be required to register. Such a system would make it very easy to discover who was the owner of a work older than the short initial period of copyright, but of course there would be administrative costs associated with it. Legislators have been more timid in their response.

The European Directive

One solution that has already been enacted is the European the orphan works directive (2012/28/EU), although the UK does not have to transpose it into UK law until 29 October 2014.

The orphan works directive is an exceptionally modest provision. Its beneficiaries are public libraries, education establishments, museums and archives. Any institution wishing to use an orphan work must first carry out a "diligent search" in good faith from "appropriate sources". The directive itself lists some "appropriate sources" which would have to be searched, but member states may add to the list, which varies depending on the type of work involved.

Records have to be kept by the institutions of their diligent searches which must be sent to their national government which in turn must make the results available on a publicly searchable website (good to see that governments are beginning to understand open data). This ought to make it easy for copyright owners to discover whether one of their works has been designated as an "orphan" and, having found out, make sure that oprhan status is rescinded.

Institutions may only use the works to achieve their "public-interest missions" and may only charge in order to recover costs of copying or making available to the public. They may not exploit the works commercially.

Canada

The orphan works directive tries to maintain the broad integrity of copyright by delegating the task of carrying out a diligent search and managing the orphan works system to trusted public institutions. By contrast Canada has been using an orphan works law which relies on a central authority, theCopyright Board of Canada.

Section 77 of the Canadian Copyright Act 1985, entitled "owners who cannot be located", requires anyone seeking a licence for what we call orphan works to satisfy the Copyright Board that they have made "reasonable efforts to locate the owner". The Board may then issue a non-eclusive licence on any terms it chooses to specify. According to their brochure they will usually require the payment of a licence fee, which will be paid to a collecting society. If the owner of the copyright appears within 5 years of they expiry of the licence, they may claim the licence fee. Where the fee was paid to a collecting society, the society will pay the owner.

The Board do not issue very many licences - roughly 22 a year since 1990. Not all applications for a licence are accepted. Whether "it works" in Canada I do not know, but copyright has clearly not come to an end there.

The United Kingdom

So where does that leave us? Section 77 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 introduces a new section 116A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 concerned with orphan works. Section 116A is a mere skeleton. It allows the government to make regulations that would allow someone (an authorised person) or alternatively some people to be chosen by someone designated for the purpose, to grant licences to orphan works. The content and circumstances of the licences we do not know. All we do know is:

• a work will not be an orphan work unless a diligent search is made for the copyright owner
• what counts as a "diligent search" will be defined in the regulations
• the licences may not be exclusive
• nor may they be granted to a person authorised to grant licences

Now in theory this means we could end up with a Wild West system where there was little real control over licensing of orphan works. The regulations could be very lax on what counted as a "diligent search" and very generous about the licensing terms. That is always a risk with open-ended legislative provisions (and why they should not be used by Parliament).

The reality, according to the intellectual property office, is that we will end up with something similar to the Canadian system. Licences will not be free. Copyright owners will be able to claim fees that have been paid. There will almost certainly be a fairly tight and prescriptive description of what counts as a "diligent search". It will not be enough simply to look at the metadata on a photograph, shrug one's shoulders, and go ahead.

Extended Collective Licensing

In parallel to section 116A is a new 116B which will allow collecting societies in sectors where they now organise (eg books and music) to be given permission to license works that they do not have any existing right to license - eg where they do not own the rights and the author has not given the society permission to license them. This is not an orphan work provision. It applies even though the society knows full well who the author of a work might be. I mention it because it has been mixed into some of the reports about the orphan works provisions.

I have my doubts about extended collective licensing, but it will at least be an "opt out" system. No-one has to participate if they do not want to. In a sector where most licensing is direct (author to user) such as photography, there may never be such a system as the intellectual property office has indicated.

Consultation

The intellectual property office tell me that there will be extensive consultation on the detail of any regulations. Anyone having an interest in these provisions should make sure they engage with the consultation or join with others to represent them collectively. I am sure the open rights group will be making representations.

Copyright in industrial art - more protection

The problem with copyright is that it isn't strong enough - are words you are unlikely to hear me say. Today clause 55 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill brings us an amendment to a fairly obscure corner of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

UK Copyright law has always had a somewhat awkward relationship with 3 dimensions. Graphical works, sculptures, collages and photographs are all protected "irrespective of artistic quality". Apart from sculptures, copyright also protects works of architecture (buildings and models for them) and works of "artistic craftsmanship". The latter category appears to be a fairly narrow one, though exactly how narrow is unclear.

Instead, UK law offers an alternative protection in the form of various design rights. There are actually 4 of these - design right, registered designs, and community unregistered and registered design rights. All of these are different to a greater or lesser extent, protecting different things, in different ways for different periods of time.

Inevitably there are overlaps between the two sets of rights. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 does a certain amount to keep the two spheres of art and design separate. For example section 51 prevents the making of a object to a design from being an infringement of the design document. But it is section 52 that interests us today.

Section 52 deals with the situation where an artistic work has been exploited in the making of articles by an industrial process and marketing them in the UK. At the end of 25 years after the articles are first marketed, it ceases to be an infringement of copyright to copy the work by making articles (of any kind) or doing any thing for the purpose of making those articles (for example by producing preliminary design drawings). The articles may also be sold to the public and otherwise dealt with without infringing copyright in the original artistic work.

Section 52 is supplemented by the Copyright (Industrial Process and Excluded Articles)(No. 2) Order 1989 which, amongst other things, excludes certain kinds of article from its operation. For example, exploiting an artistic work by making a sculpture would not engage section 52 and hence would not weaken copyright protection after 25 years, which is one of the reasons why the question of whether a  storm-trooper's helmet was a "sculpture" was considered by our Supreme Court in Lucasfilm v Ainsworth (see from paragraph 29). Many more literary or artistic articles are excluded as well such as greetings cards, book jackets and stamps (you can read the whole list in regulation 3).

In other words, an artistic work is protected by copyright, but if its owner stoops to allow its industrial exploitation then, in that sphere, it is given a period of protection akin to that of a registered design.

What section 52 does not do is shorten the period of copyright protection, it merely weakens the protection copyright gives. A clear example of this appeared in Jules Rimet Cup v Football Association [2007] EWHC 2376 (Ch) which was a dispute about the registration of a trademark in World Cup Willie. The court had to decide (amongst other things) what effect section 52 had on the Football Association's copyright in the image of World Cup Willie. It had been the subject of considerable exploitation, but the court decided that, while section 52 would allow the making of many kinds of World Cup Willie articles, it would not allow the making of excluded articles (such as the sculptures, stamps and greetings cards mentioned above). To do so would still be an infringement of copyright.

An example (stolen from Copinger) demonstrates how section 52 works. Suppose an artist drew a picture of an iconic vehicle - lets say a car- in a comic strip. After 25 years of marketing models of the car as merchandising, the artist could no longer use copyright protection from preventing others making rival versions of the car, but the artist could still stop the making of stamps, greeting cards and, most importantly, comic books based on the original drawings.

The proposed clause 55 will do away with all that. The artist would, if the clause passes, be able to sue any imitator of the car for copyright infringement. Clause 55 therefore represents a further extension of copyright, albeit in a rather subtle way.

The coverage of the proposal has been rather patch. The Design Council say:

We understand that the Bill will repeal section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which currently restricts copyright to 25 years (calculated from the date on which the work is first placed on the market) on artistic works which are exploited through an industrial process.

Which, you will see, is garbled at best. The Design Council seems to think the clause only applies to "design classics". The government's own press release demonstrates the same confusion:

... extending copyright protection for mass-produced artistic works to life of the creator plus 70 years. These measures will promote innovation in the design industry and encourage investment in new products, while discouraging unauthorised copies

As usual there is an unevidenced claim that there will be a promotion of innovation and of course no comment no the innovation in terms of competing designers seeking to give a new physical embodiment to already exploited artistic works.

All this coverage suggests that at least some of those thinking about the new law are thinking it applies to works of artistic craftsmanship alone, whereas it will apply much more widely than that, even to tins of paint.

Marks: 0/10 for failing to address what impact this will have on the now lawful re-exploitation of industrially produced art.