The British Copyright Council does not accept Government’s response to many of the points included in the letter written to parliamentary committees. To set the record straight before the Parliamentary process moved further the BCC sent a follow up letter to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on Monday 12th May and hopes the Committee will consider this letter.
A brief summary of the five points made in this letter are:-
-
- Unenforceability of contractual overrides: During the evidence session on 6th May, IPO officials referred to Section 36 (4)CDPA as an example of unenforceability of contractual overrides under existing UK copyright law. This is an incorrect and unhelpful comparison.
- Unenforceability of contractual overrides: During the evidence session on 6th May, IPO officials referred to Section 36 (4)CDPA as an example of unenforceability of contractual overrides under existing UK copyright law. This is an incorrect and unhelpful comparison.
-
- Use of quotations for purposes other than criticism and review: The BCC does not accept Government’s assessment as regards the definition of the term ‘quotation’, which is not supported by the European case-law on which the Government relies.
- Use of quotations for purposes other than criticism and review: The BCC does not accept Government’s assessment as regards the definition of the term ‘quotation’, which is not supported by the European case-law on which the Government relies.
-
- Compatibility with Article 5(5) of the Directive: The fact that a quotation exception is provided for in Article 10 of the Berne Convention does not mean that any quotation exception automatically passes the Three-Step Test. This is made clear by Article 10(2) of the WIPO Copyright Treaty.
- Compatibility with Article 5(5) of the Directive: The fact that a quotation exception is provided for in Article 10 of the Berne Convention does not mean that any quotation exception automatically passes the Three-Step Test. This is made clear by Article 10(2) of the WIPO Copyright Treaty.
-
- Use of Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972:The Government’s argument that any measure, however significant its impact, can be implemented by SI if it is relevant to some treaty obligation appears to raise significant legal questions. The right of live public performance is not an incidental adjunct to the rights in the EU copyright acquis; it is a separate and important property right.
- Use of Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972:The Government’s argument that any measure, however significant its impact, can be implemented by SI if it is relevant to some treaty obligation appears to raise significant legal questions. The right of live public performance is not an incidental adjunct to the rights in the EU copyright acquis; it is a separate and important property right.
-
- Private Copying exception: The legal grounds for Government to introduce an exception for private copying without fair compensation under Article 5(2b) Information Society Directive are not supported by recent CJEU decisions. Since our letter of 31 March 2014, the BCC position has been further supported by the CJEU judgement in case C 435/12 ACI Adam.