| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.30 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: As I suspected, this has been a technical debate about what I admitted in my opening remarks are complicated regulations.
I reassure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that, although the consultation period threw up one or two positions that
were difficult to reconcile, by and large the responses from the many groups that have lobbied me over the past year have shown a broad consensus in favour of the regulations. Points of detail will always have to be worked out and some issues will have to be tested by the courts.
We were not happy with some points because this measure was effectively achieved by qualified majority voting in the European Union. It was agreed that a timetable would be harmonised, but no detailed instructions were issued in the draft directive on how some measures needed to be carried out. Differences will therefore occur between member states, as have occurred in several different areas in this category.
Mr. Hoon:
Is the Minister suggesting that, where measures are enacted by qualified majority voting, that justifies a member state enacting different legislation from that enacted in other member states?
Mr. Taylor:
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is normally a great expert on such matters, that is not what I meant at all. I meant that, when a measure is agreed by qualified majority voting, one must take an element of rough with the smooth because we considered the overall purpose to be beneficial to this country, particularly in the area of sound broadcasting. Furthermore, the directive is not so intrusive that it goes into every area on which every member country must regulate. In those circumstances, different member countries have gone down a slightly different route in applying the regulations.
I admit that we are late in applying the regulations-- I apologise to the House for that--but we are not at the tail of the pack. Other countries are still wrestling with the problems and are having difficulties, as we had attempting to put the directive into proper UK regulations. It is my job not to second-guess other countries but to try to lay a comprehensive group of regulations before the House, which is what I have attempted to do.
I would test the patience of the House if I went through in detail all the questions that have been asked of me, but I shall attempt to deal with some of them. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) asked about United States law. We cannot definitively interpret US law, but we understand that the restoration of copyrights provided for by US legislation to implement the trade-related aspects of the intellectual property rights agreement under the general agreement on tariffs and trade depends on eligible works being protected in their source country on 1 January 1996. We believe that our legislation will be in force on that date and UK copyright owners should be able to obtain any restorations of copyright in the US to which they are entitled. I have asked our team to be certain about that, and I am assured that it is.
Other aspects of the directive, such as article 4, need to be implemented and we shall return to that as soon as possible in the new year.
The hon. Member for Ashfield asked about ownership of revived rights. That is inevitably a complex area and a decision had to be made. Authors will benefit from the increased term in the case of future works by virtue of being the first copyright owners. We had to identify exactly who, in all simplicity, should receive revived rights and we decided that it should be the last owner of those rights.
I was asked about musicians' estates. By any reading of the regulations, if an original composer or author does not benefit, it is because at some stage they or their estate transacted those rights to someone else. They are not being denied their rights; we have gone for simplicity and determined that that is the way to proceed. Those who will benefit from the revived rights should be the last owners.
Mr. Hoon:
Is the Minister entirely happy that the revived rights payment system is consistent with legislation enacted elsewhere in the European Union and, moreover, with the general principle applied in Germany, for example, where exclusive rights are guaranteed for a 70-year period? After all, that period was chosen because Germany gave greater rights than other countries in the European Union. The system for revived rights set out in the regulations does not give copyright holders exclusive rights for 70 years but simply provides a system of remuneration, subject ultimately to the Copyright Tribunal, for an extended period of 20 years.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. That is a long intervention. It is more like a second speech. I call Mr. Ian Taylor.
Mr. Taylor:
I was beginning to worry about that myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I cannot second-guess the German position. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no such thing as revived rights in that context in Germany because of the 70-year period. The Copyright Tribunal must tackle certain questions. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland remarked on the tribunal. Although it may not be perfect, it is a tried and tested way of proceeding. It is not for the Government to second-guess what a reasonable payment might be in those circumstances. It would be extremely dangerous for us to go on to that ground, which is why the tribunal pronounces on such matters.
We have never proposed a right to object to the use of a work. Our consultative document included a licence of right, as do the regulations that have been laid before Parliament. If my memory serves me right, that assumption applies to any arrangement entered into before 1 January 1995.
The issue of film authorship has been raised more than once. We are deferring the implementation of that provision until 1 January 1997. We intend to introduce the change when the so-called "rental" directive is implemented, which we aim to do in the near future. We also intend that the producer of a film will remain one of its authors in the United Kingdom. We do not intend to go further, and the directive does not oblige us to do so. The Commission did not say that total harmonisation of film authorship should be achieved between member states, and the directive does not proscribe that.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire asked about arrangements for timing. Regulation 23(2)(a) provides for acts done in pursuance of arrangements made before 1 January 1995 to be carried out without infringing revived copyright. We believe that it is only right that people who have made arrangements before that date should be allowed to carry out acts consequent on them without liability to ownership of revived rights.
A wide variety of circumstances may occur and the wording of the regulations must, of necessity, be fairly general. We do not consider it possible to define precisely the kinds of acts that will be permitted. When a dispute occurs, it will be for the courts to determine whether what has been done is genuinely in pursuance of the arrangements made before the specified date. The terminology concerned has been used in copyright legislation before--in transitional provisions in the 1988 Act, for example.
If necessary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire might read section 57(1), section 180(3) and schedule 1(6) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I say that because I know that lawyers will involve themselves in that matter anyway, and they might as well do so now.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned the vexed question of photographers. In no way was I attempting, nor shall I now attempt in any sense, to become involved in the difficulties of trying to define photography. It is both a profession and an art form and the two co-exist happily, but that is not the question.
The question is whether a photographer is an author in relation to the regulations. I am assured that, in that context, author does mean author as defined in section 9(1) of the 1988 Act, and that that includes photographers. I hope that the photographers in question are happy with that.
Mr. Austin Mitchell:
Photography is, of course, an art form as practised by myself and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, but it is also--which is more important--a living. The question therefore arises, what happens when the owner of the copyright is a company that has gone bust? Why does not the copyright revert to the photographer or his legatees or whatever, in the same way as it does for the director of a film?
Mr. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman asks a question that I am unable to answer because I am unable to second-guess the legal position. Presumably there are circumstances in which such a right might revert to the previous owner, such as when the contract made to pass on the right to the company that went bust has fallen into desuetude. In those circumstances, it will be a question for the courts to test. I must stick to that position otherwise I should be making up law on the Floor of the House, which is a dangerous thing to do.
In my opinion, the main questions that have been asked show how difficult the regulations are. Far from wasting time, we have used our time constructively to obtain a wide range of reactions from various groups.
I admit that, in the end, Ministers and Departments must make a decision. We have made a decision, and we have laid the regulations before the House. I am delighted that the matter was chosen for debate on the Floor of the House.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire for her encouragement and for the compliments that she paid on behalf of the Writers' Guild of Great Britain, of which she is an esteemed and honourable member--[Interruption.] Well, she is not a member, but she is a writer. I am slightly concerned that,
as a result of the debate, I am to feature in some position or other in her next novel. Before I get myself into further difficulty, I shall commend the regulations to the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |