Select Committee on Innovation, Universities and Skills Written Evidence


Memorandum 14

Submission from the National Union of Journalists

THE WORK AND OPERATION OF THE COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL

  The National Union of Journalists represents 40,000 journalists in the United Kingdom and Ireland, 20% of them freelance. Copyright is a crucial element in the working lives of our freelance members in particular.

  We have a number of important points to make in response to the Review of the Copyright Tribunal.

  1.  We have no objection in principle to Recommendation 29 on Orphaned Works, and we would like the Committee to take notice of the Canadian model, which, for the most part, we recommend.

  2.  It is our strongly held opinion that any system established to regulate orphaned works would only be viable if the moral rights of authors were strengthened. At present, the various exceptions to the paternity right will work against the principle of limiting the number of orphaned works in circulation.

  3.  Recommendation 20, seeking to eliminate lay members, including authors' representatives, would be counter-productive, we believe. In considering orphaned works in particular the skills and experience of lay representatives who are authors in negotiating licences would be of inestimable value.

  4.  If the scope of the Tribunal is expanded it would become more adversarial, and for this reason we oppose Recommendation 14. Both parties to a dispute should continue to have the right to call expert witnesses in support of their claims.

  5.  And, as the expansion of the Tribunal is under consideration, we suggest expanding it in another direction.

    5.1  In our submission to the Gowers Review, the NUJ suggested the creation of a quarterly Small Copyright Claims court, As intellectual property claims can no longer be assigned to the Small Claims Court, this option is no longer viable. See www.londonfreelance.orq/ar/gowers.html

    5.2  Nevertheless, the problem remains. The NUJ typically deals with copyright infringement cases with values in the range of £200-£2,000. The costs of such cases are substantial and would almost certainly exceed the value of the claim. This precludes pursuing most such cases.

    5.3  The current legal system is, in effect, deterring many victims of copyright infringement from enforcing their statutory rights.

    5.4  If the Copyright Tribunal were to expand to cover adjudication of such small claims, this would provlde claimants with a more efficient and more economic system of redress.

    5.5  We would suggest that If this Idea meets with approval, consideration should be given to enabling the Tribunal to hear cases outwith London.

    5.6  We note that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended In 1988 that the Tribunal should not act—a Small Claims Court and reply that the recent change to CMI Procedure Rules makes it hnperative that some forum cariy out this function to ensure access to justice for creators.

  6.  Incidentally, recommendation 30 is that "The collecting societies should be referred to as tensing societies". This would cause more confusion than clarity, since the collecting societies role with respect to our members is to license only secondary rights.

  7.  We support the submission of DACS, rejected by the review team, that the Tribunal be empowered to regulate contracts between creators and users.

January 2008





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 20 March 2008