This consultation ran from am on 16 July to pm on 8 October Consultation description The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act CDPA provides copyright owners with a range of rights allowing them to control the use of their works and to seek payment for this use. Among these rights are rights to control the showing, playing and other communication of works to the public. This includes the showing of a film or broadcast to a public audience. Section 72 1 sets out an exception to these rights.
|Published (Last):||19 December 2008|
|PDF File Size:||3.53 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.78 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Transitional provisions[ edit ] These provisions apply to works existing on 1 August , other than those covered by Crown copyright or Parliamentary copyright paras. The duration of copyright in the following types of work continued to be governed by the Act: literary, dramatic and musical works published posthumously; engravings published posthumously; published photographs and photographs taken before 1 June ; published sound recordings and sound recordings made before 1 June ; published films and registered films; anonymous and pseudonymous literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works other than photographs where these have been published and unless the identity of the author becomes known.
Copyright in the following types of work lasts until 31 December unpublished literary, dramatic and musical works of which the author has died unpublished in the sense of the proviso to s. Mass-produced artistic works[ edit ] Artistic works that are mass-produced by an industrial process suffer from a downgrading of their copyright term from the life of the creator plus 70 years to 25 years as a result of the provisions of section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill  was introduced into Parliament on 23 May and is likely to become law in late or early If section 56 2 of the Bill is enacted then artistic works that are mass-produced by the copyright holder will benefit from the same period of protection as those not replicated in large numbers.
The result will be a significant extension from 25 years to that of the life of the creator plus 70 years. The proposed change is a reaction to pressure from the international furniture industry supported by manufacturers of decorative arts: copyright holders of many famous and much copied 20th century furniture design classics such as the Egg Chair and Barcelona Daybed hope that long expired copyright periods will be revived allowing for a further period of commercial exploitation.
They contend that many mass-produced items of 20th-century industrial furniture may not be defined by the courts of the United Kingdom as works of artistic craftsmanship but as mere designs. A design that is not an artistic work attracts no copyright protection under the Act. Barrie , had given his copyright to the hospital in , later confirmed in his will.
Although often incorrectly referred to as a perpetual copyright , it does not confer Great Ormond Street Hospital full intellectual property rights over the work. The existing common law defences to copyright infringement, notably fair dealing and the public interest defence , are not affected s. This chapter of the Act has been substantially modified, notably by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations No.
Fair dealing defences[ edit ] The following are also permitted acts the list is not exhaustive : Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of private study or research s. Works may be performed in educational establishments without infringing copyright, provided that no members of the public are present s. Further provisions are contained in secondary legislation. They may also make and supply copies to other libraries s. The detailed conditions for making copies are contained in secondary legislation, currently the Copyright Librarians and Archivists Copying of Copyright Material Regulations No.
The Crown may make copies of works which are submitted to it for official purposes s. Material which is open to public inspection or on an official register may be copied under certain conditions:  this includes material made open to public inspection by the European Patent Office and by the World Intellectual Property Organization under the Patent Cooperation Treaty ,  and material held as public records under the Public Records Act c.
Relevant cases[ edit ] Test of joint ownership - Problems can occur when there is a need to determine whether a person involved in the creation of a piece of work may have joint ownership.
When this is the case, there is a test that can be applied, similar to the one which is used to determine originality. This test is used in order to show that the labour, skill and judgement exercised by the author are unique and are that of which are protected by copyright. Levy v Rutley  - In this case it was stated that there can be no finding of joint authorship in a copyright work in the absence of a common intention to that effect.
Stuart v Barret  - The court described the test for joint authorship in a work of music: "What the claimant to joint authorship of a work must establish is that he has made a significant and original contribution to the creation of the work and that he has done so pursuant to a common design.
Nor, in the case of a song, does it matter that his contribution is to the orchestral arrangement of the song rather than to the song itself. He never became a member of the group. The issue here was whether the claimant was the joint owner of copyright in six musical works for which he had made orchestral arrangements or contributed to their composition. It was held that the claimant had established that he had made a significant and original contribution to the creation of the work and must be regarded as a joint author.
But as he had waited 14 years before asserting his rights, he was stopped from revoking the implied license granted to the pop group for the exploitation of the works. Here, examiners were hired to create exam scripts for the University of London. The question arose as to whether certain mathematics exam papers were original literary works.
The exam papers just consisted of conventional maths problems in a conventional manner. The court held that originality does not mean that the work must be an expression of individual thought.
The simple fact that the authors drew on a body of knowledge common to mathematicians did not compromise originality. The requirement of originality, it was held, does not require that expression be in an original or novel form. It does, however, require that the work not be copied from another work.
It must originate from the author. As such, even though these were the same old maths problems every student is familiar with, and even though there was no creative input, the skill, labour, and judgement of the authors was sufficient to make the papers original literary works.
Essentially, the criteria is satisfied if the work is not a copy of a preceding work and it is originated from the author, who must have exercised the requisite labour, skill or judgement in producing the work. EMI , then called The Gramophone Company and argued that it was against the law to play the record in public without first receiving the permission of the copyright owners.
The judge agreed, establishing this as a legal principle. IE engaged a Mr Pullen who in turn engaged an arranger and a conductor R. It was common ground that R did the following — commissioned and paid for the musical arrangements, booked and paid for the studio, arranged and paid for the attendance of the 51 musicians necessary to make the recording, engaged and paid for the scoring, a sound engineer, and a fixer and paid for all expenses of the sessions such as meals, taxis, etc.
By whom were the arrangements necessary for the making of the recording undertaken? And if the plaintiffs were not the owners of the copyright, was R stopped from asserting his ownership? In the case, it was held that IE undertook the arrangements through Mr Pullen.
R made the recordings, but Mr Pullen undertook the arrangements. However, had IE not been the copyright owner, R would not have been stopped because he was not aware of his rights. The moral rights of an author cannot be transferred to another person s.
The right to object to false attribution of work last for twenty years after a person death, the other moral rights last for the same period as the other copyright rights in the work s. Crown and Parliamentary copyrights[ edit ] The Act simplifies the regime of Crown copyright , that is the copyright in works of the United Kingdom government, and abolishes the perpetual Crown copyright in unpublished works of the Crown. It also creates the separate concept of Parliamentary copyright for the works of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Scottish Parliament , and applies similar rules to the copyrights of certain international organisations.
Crown copyright last for fifty years after publication, or years after creation for unpublished works s.
Works of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and of Scotland, except Bills and Acts, are protected by Parliamentary copyright for fifty years after creation: Bills are protected from the date of their introduction to the date of Royal Assent or of rejection ss.
The works of the United Nations and its specialised agencies and of the Organisation of American States are protected for fifty years after creation s. Enforcement of copyright[ edit ] Infringement of copyright is actionable by the copyright owner as the infringement of a property right s.
Damages will not be awarded against an "innocent" defendant, i. Orders are available for the delivery up Scots law: delivery and disposal of infringing copies ss. Copyright owners may ask the HM Revenue and Customs to treat infringing copies as "prohibited goods", in which case they are prohibited from import s. Secondary infringement covers: importing infringing copies s. To qualify, the design must be original not commonplace in the field in question and not fall into one of the excluded categories s.
The design must be recorded in a document after s. The design right lasts for fifteen years after the design is recorded in a document, or for ten years if articles have been made available for sale s. Designs and typefaces[ edit ] The copyright in a design document is not infringed by making or using articles to that design, unless the design is an artistic work or a typeface s.
If an artistic work has been exploited with permission for the design by making articles by an industrial process and marketing them, the work may be copied by making or using articles of any description after the end of a period of twenty-five years from the end of the calendar year when such articles were first marketed s. It is not an infringement of the copyright in a typeface to use it in the ordinary course of printing or to use the material produced by such printing s. The criteria for registration of a design and the duration of the registered design right ss.
Provisions are also added to allow ministers to take action to protect the public interest in monopoly situations s. A consolidated version of the Registered Designs Act is included s. Commencement[ edit ] There are numerous commencement dates for the different sections of the Act, detailed below. Date of commencement.
The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
As a matter of fact, it is usually a matter of extent and notion. Nonetheless it is necessary to borrow some guidance from Case Law which has formulated aspects which are regarded appropriate to establish fairness. The significance given to each one of these aspects depends on the situation affecting the infringing act and thus may differ depending on a particular case. These aspects include the quality and amount of content drawn from copyrighted work, the use of the work if the work is being used for financial benefits or not and the intention of the infringer. The exemptions to copyright violation entailed in the act authorize that some actions do not violate the rights of the owner. The fair dealings provisions provide some defences to copyright infringement.
Section 72 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
Technical Review: Section 72 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
- ALESSANDRO SIANI UN NAPOLETANO COME ME PDF
- GRAFLEX SPEED GRAPHIC MANUAL PDF
- DEMASIADO AMOR SARA SEFCHOVICH PDF
- CUNNINGSWORTH 1995 CHOOSING YOUR COURSEBOOK PDF
- MALA SKOLA ELEKTRONIKE 1 PDF
- EPSON ACULASER C1100 JAM MP E COUNTERMEASURE PDF
- CPRB08XCJ MANUAL PDF
- EL ERROR DE DESCARTES ANTONIO DAMASIO DESCARGAR PDF