IPO launches consultation on proposals to modernise copyright system

Practical Law UK Legal Update 9-516-8829 (Approx. 11 pages)

IPO launches consultation on proposals to modernise copyright system

by PLC IPIT & Communications

Background

In November 2010, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced an independent review of the UK's intellectual property (IP) laws to ensure that they are "fit for the internet age" (see Legal update, Government launches review of IP laws). The review was led by Professor Ian Hargreaves, the chair of Digital Economy at the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies and Cardiff Business School.

Professor Hargreaves published his review (the Hargreaves review) in May 2011 (see Legal update, Hargreaves review of intellectual property published). The Hargreaves review made various recommendations, including that:

A licensing system for orphan works should be established to extend collective licensing for mass licensing of orphan works (works in respect of which the copyright owners are not known or cannot be located), and a clearance procedure for use of individual works should also be established.
The government should introduce new copyright exceptions to cover format-shifting, parody, non-commercial research and library archiving.
The IPO should be empowered to issue statutory opinions where these will help clarify copyright law.

The government published its response to the review in August 2011 (see Legal update, Government response to Hargreaves review of intellectual property published). The government broadly accepted all of the recommendations, and set out the actions it intended to take. These included:

Publishing minimum standards for voluntary codes for collecting societies and consulting with them on their implementation in autumn 2011, and drawing up proposals for a backstop power that allows a statutory code to be put in place for non-compliant collecting societies.
Bringing forward, in autumn 2011, proposals for an orphan-works scheme, and extending collective licensing to benefit sectors that choose to adopt it.
Bringing forward, in autumn 2011, proposals for a substantial opening up of the UK's copyright-exceptions regime, including a wide non-commercial research exception covering text and data mining, a limited private-copying exception, and further exceptions for parody and library archiving.
That the IPO would set out plans for a copyright-opinions service by December 2011 or January 2012.

Facts

On 14 December 2011, the government published a consultation paper setting out details of the changes it proposes to make to copyright law in order to implement the recommendations made in the Hargreaves review. The main proposals are summarised below.

Copyright licensing: orphan works

The Hargreaves review said that the problem of orphan works – works to which access was effectively barred because the copyright holder could not be traced – represented "the starkest failure of the copyright framework to adapt". The government's key proposals to deal with the demand for authorised orphan works are that:

New legislation should be introduced to enable the use of individual orphan works after a diligent search and confirmation by an authorising body such as a collecting society or a public body like the Copyright Tribunal. The government seeks views on who should authorise the use of orphan works and why.
Orphan works should be defined, for this purpose, as works that are in copyright and where the copyright holders remain un-located after a diligent search. The orphan works covered should include:
- works in respect of which there are a number of different rights-holders, some of whom are locatable and some are not. Those rights-holders who can be located would need to consent and to agree terms for any use, while the rights that were orphaned would be covered by the proposed scheme;
- both published and unpublished works, including works whether they are in commerce or not. The government seeks views on this. It notes that limiting the scheme to only published or broadcast works could cause more problems than it solves, since it will not always be clear whether something has been published or broadcast; and
- all types or copyrighted works.
The legislation should allow both non-commercial and commercial use. The government considers that this is necessary to maximise the opportunities for economic advantage for all, and would also avoid possible debate about what constitutes non-commercial use. In this regard, the government seeks views on, among other things, in relation to photographs, whether permitting commercial use of orphan works could undermine the market for non-orphan works. The government says that this argument assumes that use of orphan photographs would be cheaper when, in fact, it considers that the remuneration for use of orphan works would need to be at market rate. It seeks views on these issues.
Absent rights-holders must be adequately protected. This includes making due provision for remuneration for rights-holders and the introduction of codes of conduct for collecting societies. The government considers that payments should be at market rate. It seeks views on this and how the payment should be made. The two options being considered are for the authorising body to require upfront payment of a royalty fee which is then held in an escrow account in case any revenant rights-holders or successors-in-title appear; or to require agreement that payment will be made if the rights-holders appear.

The government also seeks views on various specific points regarding the operation of the proposed scheme, including the following:

What should be done with works of unclear copyright status. It proposes to authorise use of such works in some circumstances.
The territorial scope of the proposed scheme. The government seeks views on whether the UK can or should be able to authorise the use of UK orphan works outside the UK; and whether orphan works that have originated in countries outside the UK, or partly originated outside the UK, but are held in UK archives should be authorised for use by the UK.
Whether the term of copyright in unpublished and in anonymous and in pseudonymous literary, dramatic and musical works should be limited to the life of the author plus 70 years or to 70 years from the date of creation, rather than to 2039 at the earliest.
What is required in order for there to have been a sufficient diligent search to ascertain who the rights-holders are and to locate them, and how the search should operate. It says that details of this search could need to be provided to the authorising body so that they could decide whether reasonable efforts had been made, or the authorising body could conduct the diligent search in return for a fee from the potential user. An alternative approach would be for the authorising body to list works that, for example, a museum considers are probably orphans, on a public website, awaiting claim within a certain period by the rightful copyright owners. The consultation notes that if the digital copyright exchange (DCE) finds favour with industry and becomes a reality, it is likely that a search of the DCE would be an essential part of any diligent search. (The DCE was proposed in the Hargreaves review and is current the subject of a feasability study (see Legal update, Government launches feasibility study on creating digital copyright exchange).)
The operation of moral rights in respect of orphan works.
What a user of orphan works should be able to do with that work in terms of duration of the authorisation.

Copyright licensing: extended collective licensing

The Hargreaves review advocated the use of Extended Collective Licensing (ECL), a type of rights clearance that would allow an authorised collecting society – one that represents the majority of rights-holders in a sector – to license for specific uses of works within the UK. This has been used for many years in some Nordic countries for the more efficient mass clearance of rights.

The government's key proposals are to introduce new legislation that would introduce voluntary ECL on the following basis, and the government seeks views on this and poses various questions:

The legislation would allow collecting societies that wish to operate an extended licensing scheme in relation to particular rights and uses of rights within the UK to apply for an authorisation from government to do so. This authorisation would be subject to certain criteria being met by the collecting society, including that it had committed itself to adhere to certain conditions set by government, including minimum standards of fairness and transparency enshrined in codes of conduct.
Collecting societies wanting to operate an ECL scheme would need to act for most rights-holders in the sector. The collecting society would then need to seek the consent of the majority of their members to apply for an ECL authorisation.
Once authorised, the collecting society would be able to act not just for its members, but also for rights-holders who are not members, with the exception of those who opt out of the ECL scheme.
Collecting societies authorised to operate an ECL scheme would be given additional powers to act on behalf of non-member rights-holders who have not given them explicit consent to act. These additional powers could be counterbalanced with some checks, in particular the criteria required to be satisfied for a collecting society to be authorised.
Opt-out is an essential component of an ECL scheme. The widest possible notice should be given of the introduction of ECL in any sector. Depending on the size and coverage of the collecting society, it would be appropriate to place adverts, designed to attract the attention of rights-holders, in national media such as radio, television, and newspapers. It is proposed that the opt-out mechanism should be simple and at zero or negligible cost to the rights-holder, such as an e-mail or a telephone call to a free-phone or local number.
ECL should be used for the mass clearance of works which could include orphan works, as proposed in the Hargreaves review. In respect of such orphan works, which would only be discovered at the end of the process when the money comes to be allocated and distributed, the collecting society would need to conduct a search to find the rights-holders. A collecting society should be required to give as wide notice as possible of its intention to make a distribution of monies, as with the opt-in.
A collecting society that uses ECL will be required to retain any money due to non-members. Notice of distribution should be advertised widely so that as much of the royalties collected as possible are paid out in a timely manner. However, there may still be unclaimed royalties, and the consultation seeks views on issues such as how long non-members should be given to come forward and what should be done with unclaimed monies after a specified period.

Copyright licensing: codes of conduct for collecting societies

The government's key proposals are as follows:

The government intends to publish minimum standards that must be included in a collecting society's code of conduct. It says that it hopes to do so following the conclusion of this consultation process, accompanied by guidance for collecting societies which sets out the measures they will need to take to ensure compliance with these standards.
The government sets out the areas it thinks these minimum standards should cover, namely: obligations to rights-holders; obligations to licensees; control of the conduct of employees and agents; information and transparency; monitoring and reporting requirements; complaint handling; an ombudsman; and review of the code. It seeks views on whether these areas should be covered, and what other areas might be covered. It also sets out its views on what, at a minimum, a collecting society's code should provide for under each of the relevant areas it identifies and seeks views on this.
Once the minimum standards have been published, collecting societies will be given the opportunity to, within in a year, self-regulate by adopting voluntary codes of conduct which include these standards. Among other things, the government seeks views on whether a year is a sufficient period of time for collecting societies to put in place a code of conduct.
The "penalty" for not putting in place or adhering to a voluntary code of conduct that complies with the minimum criteria is that a statutory code that will be put in place through the use of a backstop legislative power. The government anticipates that any statutory code will closely reflect the minimum standards which will be published following this consultation process, and which will form the basis for voluntary codes. Determining whether a society is in breach of either a voluntary or statutory code should be within the purview of Ministers. It is anticipated that government would consider Ombudsman's reports and representations from collecting societies and their users in reaching such a decision. The government seeks views on the process and thresholds that would provide the basis for government intervention, and on what suitable penalties would be in the event that a collecting society fails to comply with a statutory code of conduct.

The government also says that it wants to provide public recognition of strong performance against voluntary codes of conduct (as evidenced by Ombudsman's reports), giving collecting societies the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to high levels of service. It seeks views on what form this recognition could take, such as a kitemark.

Changes to exceptions to copyright

The government agrees with the Hargreaves review's premise that it should prevent copyright over-regulating activities that do not prejudice the provision of incentives to creators. It therefore intends to expand copyright exceptions to permit greater use and reuse of creative works without permission of copyright owners where such use has social and/or economic benefit.

The government therefore intends to explore the scope for widening copyright exceptions within EU law, with a view to modernising and opening up copyright exceptions to the maximum degree, guided by the following principles:

Exceptions should be introduced or expanded to the maximum degree that is possible without undermining incentives to creators.
Exceptions must be compatible with European and international law, including the EU Copyright Directive, which exhaustively lists nineteen types of exception that EU member states are permitted to provide in their national copyright laws.
It should not be possible to use contracts to restrict uses that are permitted by exceptions. The consultation includes a separate section discussing this in detail. In particular, the government is proposing to introduce a provision, applying to every exception in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) which would make it clear that any contract term purporting to prohibit or restrict the use of an exception is unenforceable. (See paragraphs 7.234 - 7.250, consultation document.)
New or revised copyright laws should be clear, straightforward, and avoid unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy.

The government plans to consider the case for each exception permitted under the Copyright Directive during this consultation process. Some of these have already been fully or largely implemented in UK law, and there is only minor scope to amend them. Others do not yet exist or could be significantly widened.

The first five exceptions considered by the government are those specifically identified in the Hargreaves review as being important to economic growth (that is, exceptions for format-shifting, parody, non-commercial research, and library archiving, and an exception to support text and data analytics). The consultation then looks at the scope within EU law for implementing or widening other exceptions.

Private copying

The government proposes to create a new exception to copyright that allows people to copy creative content for private, non-commercial use. To be future-proof, it intends this exception to be technology, format and platform neutral, permitting private copying of any type of copyright work to any type of device or medium. The government says that it will ensure that such an exception is sufficiently narrow so that any harm caused to copyright owners through private copying is minimised. Therefore, it does not intend to introduce a levy on electronic devices or blank media, as exists in some other EU states.

It sets forward the following possible implementations for the proposed new exception:

Permitting copying within the private sphere. The Hargreaves review suggested that a private-copying exception permitting copying for family use would deliver greater consumer benefits than one covering only personal use. However, the IPO says that an exception along these lines is not currently its preferred option because of various uncertainties regarding it. These include uncertainty as to whether it could result in lost sales for copyright owners and impact on the incentives to creators. In particular, while some economists likened copying within a private circle to shared uses of traditional media (such as family television sharing) and while it might be possible to factor such sharing into prices, unlike with traditional media, sharing a work by copying would result in multiple copies that could be used in parallel and reduce sales.
Permitting copying for personal use. Such an exception would allow copying for uses such as format-shifting, backup, and use on different devices, but would not permit sharing of content. Among other things, British businesses developing private-copying devices and services, particularly SMEs, would benefit from reduced legislative barriers to innovation and growth. In view of its potential benefits this is currently the government's preferred option, either by itself or in combination with other measures as described below. The government invites evidence on the potential costs and benefits of such an exception, and whether it reflects reasonable consumer expectations.
Permitting private copying where harm is minimal. As an alternative to the approaches described above, a private copying exception could be widely drawn but expressly limited so that it only applied when harm caused by copying is minimal. This approach is similar to that taken in the UK's existing fair dealing exceptions, which enable the courts to apply the law flexibly to individual cases depending upon the specific facts before them. Such an approach has the benefit of flexibility and allows adaptation to different situations, but may result in a lack of clarity about the type of copying that is allowed under the exception, as its limits will need to be defined through case law. The government says that it would welcome views on whether this approach is preferable to the more specific approaches described above or whether, to help avoid uncertainty, it could be introduced in combination with them.

The government also says that it intends to extend the current mechanism allowing beneficiaries of exceptions to access works protected by technological measures to cover a private copying exception.

Preservation by libraries and archives

The Hargreaves review said that libraries are inhibited in preserving content through digitisation, that they cannot preserve all categories of works and that as a result, works continue to deteriorate. It said that this made no sense and that it should be uncontroversial to deliver the necessary change by extending the archiving exception, including to cover fully audiovisual works and sound recordings. To address this, the government proposes to:

Extend Section 42 of the CDPA to make it easier to preserve a wide range of media for future generations, and also amend it so that it applies to audiovisual works and sound recordings as well as literary, dramatic or musical works, and so that multiple copies can be made. It is also proposed to allow museums and galleries to benefit from this exception as well as libraries and archives.
Simplify sections 61 and 75 of the CDPA to make it easier to archive broadcasts and folk songs. This could be done by making it easier to become a designated body under these provisions, for example, by delegating authority to do this to the Comptroller General of the IPO, or by removing the need for formal designation altogether. Alternatively, it may be possible to further simplify these provisions by merging them with the more general preservation exception of section 42.

Research and private study

The government proposes to amend the UK's current research exception currently provided in section 29 of the CDPA (see Practice note, Overview of Copyright: Research and private study) to enable students and researchers to copy sound recordings, films and broadcasts as well as the other types of work that they are already allowed to copy. The aim would be to make the exception "work-neutral", so that it applies to every type of copyright work. In order to ensure that this exception does not damage incentives to creators, the government intends to keep it as a "fair dealing" exception (see Practice note, Overview of Copyright: Fair dealing defences) . This will mean individuals could not copy entire works where they would ordinarily have to buy them, but they could copy extracts from them.

In the same way that it intends to amend the research and private study exception to cover a wider range of works and media, the government also intends to amend the related exceptions that permit libraries to make and supply copies for the purposes of non-commercial research or private study under sections 38, 39 and 43 of the CDPA.

The consultation notes that the UK does not currently have a copyright exception that permits educational establishments, libraries, archives or museums to make works available for research or private study on their premises by electronic means, although such an exception is permitted by the Copyright Directive. The government does not currently know the level of demand for such an exception, or its costs and benefits, but says that it will consider the merits of introducing such an exception based on evidence gathered through this consultation.

Text and data mining for research

The government proposes to introduce a new non-commercial research exception that permits copying for text and data analytics. The exception would be limited further so that it applies only to uses of technology that do not unduly prejudice the primary market for or value of the copyright works being copied.

The government says that, in view of the current EU legal framework, the proposal would have to be limited to copying for non-commercial research. It says that the extent to which the benefits of such an exception can be realised if it does not include commercial research is at this stage unclear, but the government believes it could still be of significant value. It says that it would welcome views on whether an exception limited to non-commercial research is practical and whether it would be worthwhile in terms of its benefits.

Parody, caricature and pastiche

The consultation notes that other countries which have introduced an exception to copyright to permit "parody", "caricature" and "pastiche" have generally left it to the courts to define these terms. The government says that this is its preferred option. However, it says that it would welcome views on whether an additional definition could be provided for the sake of clarity.

The consultation seeks views on the most appropriate scope and safeguards for this exception. It sets out various options for possible limitations to a parody exception, including to limit the exception by:

The intent behind a work of parody, caricature, or pastiche. The terms "parody" and "caricature" tend to apply only to works made for comic effect, such as satire and burlesque, but this is not necessarily true of a pastiche. Restricting this exception to use for comedy or satire could help ensure that works made under it do not mimic original works too closely.
The impact a parody is likely to have on sales of an original work. The main sources of harm to creators from this type of exception are likely to be from confusion with the original leading to substitution effects or from damage to the reputation of the original. To address the first issue a useful rule could be that a parody can only benefit from the exception if it is distinct enough from the original so as to not be a substitute for it.
Introducing measures to limit reputational damage. The consultation notes that negative reputational impacts of a parody will be limited to a degree by the moral rights given to creators, which the government does not intend to dilute. It says that the right to object to derogatory treatment will prevent the making of certain parodies, although many are unlikely to constitute derogatory treatment even if not liked by copyright owners. However, the government acknowledges that even if a parody is not considered derogatory treatment of an original work, it may still have a negative impact on its reputation. It says that it may be desirable, therefore, to introduce further measures to limit reputational damage.
Making the exception a fair dealing exception. The government says that this is its preferred way to address these issues. Fair dealing is likely to mean that commercially competing uses of copyright material (those capable of substituting for the original) are not allowed, and is also likely to rule out use of the parody exception to make a straightforward cover version. The government says that a fair dealing exception appears to be the simplest and most flexible way to provide a useful exception while limiting potential negative impacts, and notes that it was the option chosen by the Australian government when it introduced a parody exception in 2006. However, the government recognises that some creators will seek greater clarity as to the limits of a parody exception, so it does not rule out the introduction of other limitations if these can be clearly defined and support the overall objectives of the exception.

Scope within EU law for implementing or widening other exceptions

Use of works for quotation and reporting current events

The government proposes widening the existing exception for criticism and review in section 30 of the CDPA (see Practice note, Overview of Copyright: Criticism, review and news reporting) to cover the use of quotations for other purposes. It will also look to clarify this exception, so that its terminology is more consistent with that of the Copyright Directive.

The government's current preferred option is to maintain the current limitation of this exception to fair dealing, and maintain the requirement for attribution, but to widen the type of quotation that is permitted. One approach would be to simply permit any quotation, as long as it is fair. This would be similar to the approach currently taken by the Nordic countries. An alternative approach, with a similar effect, would be to copy the language of the Copyright Directive, which refers to "quotations for purposes such as criticism or review".

It seeks views on these proposals. However, the government says that further clarification of this exception may be required, for example by adding further categories of use alongside criticism and review. Such categories could include information, analysis, argument or comment, for example. In addition, it may be helpful to clarify that the exception only applies to the extent required for the specific purpose. This restriction is implicit in fair dealing, but making it explicit (in line with the Directive) may help to reassure copyright owners that the exception is not intended to permit extensive and unjustified copying of works under the guise of quotation.

The government also proposes to consider whether to widen the existing fair dealing exception for reporting current events in section 30 of the CDPA, so that it also permits copying and communication by the press of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics (as permitted by EU law). These uses would not be permitted if they are expressly reserved by a copyright owner. The government says that it is unclear whether such an extension would be necessary if the quotation exception was extended as described above. The government's preference would be to combine these two exceptions, for simplicity.

The government seeks views on the above proposals. It also asks whether there is a need to amend the existing provisions in sections 58 and 59 of the CDPA relating to speeches and lectures (see Practice notes, Overview of Copyright: Use of notes or recordings of spoken words and Overview of Copyright: Public reading or recitation), and what the costs and benefits would be of doing so.

Other exceptions considered

The consultation also discusses changes to various other exceptions, including the following, which are not dealt with in this update, but details of the proposals regarding which can be found in the sections of the consultation document indicated:

Use of works for education (paragraphs 7.123 - 7.152, consultation document).
Copyright exceptions for people with disabilities (paragraphs 7.153 - 7.176, consultation document).
Use of works for public administration and reporting (paragraphs 7.198 - 7.207, consultation document).
Recording of broadcasts by social institutions (paragraph 7.208 - 7.210, consultation document).
Use during religious or official celebrations (paragraph 7.211- 7.214, consultation document).
Use in relation to the public exhibition or sale of artistic works (paragraph 7.215 - 7.217, consultation document).

Copyright notices

The Hargreaves review noted that there was no obvious means, in relation to copyright, to clarify the boundaries of copyright infringement in the new circumstances which digital technology creates, nor had the IPO any means to clarify the law where it was causing misunderstanding and confusion in a way which carries formal authority, although it has equivalent functions in patents and trade marks.

The consultation focuses upon the Hargreaves review's recommendation for general clarification of areas which are causing confusion. The consultation uses the term "Copyright Notice" rather than the term "Copyright Opinion" used in the review. This is because the IPO uses the term "Opinion" in relation to the dispute resolution service which it offers for certain types of patent disputes.

The government commits to the IPO setting out plans for a copyright notices service at the turn of the year. The consultation document outlines the IPO's plans. The government will use responses to help it draw up more detailed plans, and will report on these in the planned IP and Growth White Paper in Spring 2012. The key proposals are:

To introduce a statutory obligation on the IPO to issue general Notices on areas where there is manifest confusion or misunderstanding on the scope and application of copyright law. The government's intention is for these Notices to become an authoritative source of copyright clarification which the courts would take into account. They would not replace or amend either statute or case law.
The Notices would cover matters of general interest rather than the particulars of a specific dispute. There would be no charge for a Notice.
The IPO would have a new statutory duty to issue these Notices upon request or where there was evidence of confusion. There would be rules and procedures covering matters such as how to apply for a Notice and the time scales within which the IPO must respond to a request.
The IPO would, however, be able to exercise discretion over when to respond to a request for a Notice. For example, it would be mindful to employ its resources efficiently. Therefore, it would prioritise those requests which seem to cover topics where: there was evidence of a widespread need for clarification; or which overlapped with the substance of routine queries which the IPO frequently receives. Similarly, the IPO may decide to prioritise those requests for Notices which seem most able to benefit a wider audience or facilitate innovation and growth.
The IPO would be able to issue a Notice on its own initiative, but the same prioritisation criteria would apply.
The IPO would not bear any legal liability in relation to these Notices and how they were applied by others.

It has also been suggested that the IPO should operate a dispute resolution service whereby parties can seek a non-binding Opinion on a specific disagreement involving copyright. This would be an alternative to taking action through the courts, but would not preclude this course of action if either of the parties wished to pursue that route. The government is not proposing to establish such a service at this stage but would like to gauge demand for it. It seeks views on this.

Timing and responses

The closing date for responses to the consultation is 21 March 2012. A response can be submitted by letter or e-mail or by using the response form included as Annex D to the consultation document.

The Hargreaves review emphasised the need for transparent reliance on evidence as a basic for policy on IP. The government says that, in assessing contributions to the consultation, it will give limited weight to evidence that is not sufficiently open and transparent. To help contributors gauge their responses, the IPO has also published a short guidance document, alongside the consultation document, on which constitutes open and transparent evidence.

The government says that it intends to respond to the consultation and make formal proposals for legislation in an IP and Growth White Paper in spring 2012. It says that the White Paper would also serve as a progress report on other work arising from the Hargreaves review, whether ultimately leading to legislation or not.

Comment

The consultation sets out a wide range of proposals which, if they are all taken forward and implemented, would see a fairly radical overhaul of UK copyright law in order to make it fit for purpose for the digital age. If taken forward, these changes will impact significantly on the rights-clearance process for orphan works and other copyright works, and on how collecting societies operate. The changes to the copyright exceptions would have implications for rights-holders, businesses and the public, while the new IPO "copyright notices" service proposed is also likely to assist SMEs and practitioners to understand the IPO’s view on difficult or misunderstood areas of copyright law. The government has also left open the possibility that a dispute resolution service whereby parties can seek a non-binding opinion on a specific disagreement involving copyright could be taken forward if there is demand for it.

It is notable that the government, as well as considering the amendments to copyright exceptions recommended in the Hargreaves review, has gone further and decided to look at all of the copyright exceptions provided for in the CDPA again in order to decide whether there is scope for widening copyright exceptions within EU law. Accordingly, while certain changes, such as regarding introducing an exception for parody and to permit limited private copying, were on our radar, the consultation also comes up with a few surprises, such as the proposal to widen the existing exception for criticism and review in section 30 of the CDPA to potentially permit any quotation, as long as it is fair.

Practitioners and rights-holders will also be very interested in the detail provided in this consultation regarding how the proposed new or revised exceptions to copyright will work in practice, and the detailed mechanics regarding the proposed orphan works licensing and ECL schemes. The government is still clearly working much of this out, and has emphasised the importance of evidence gathering, so that the consultation contains a large number of questions on which it seeks views and evidence, to which a wide range of stakeholders will no doubt want to respond.

Given the range and very significant practical implications of the proposals, the consultation will repay careful reading by practitioners.

Source

Intellectual Property Office: Consultation on proposals to change the UK's copyright system and press release, 14 December 2011.

IPO launches consultation on proposals to modernise copyright system | Practical Law