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 acta
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
|