Memorandum 16
Supplementary memorandum from the Society
of College, National and University Libraries following evidence
session on 28 January
I attended the hearing on Monday and was pleased
to see the Sub-Committee's interest in the idea of a Copyright
Ombudsman to supplement the Tribunal. SCONUL's reason for putting
forward the idea is that many copyright disputes nowadays involves
small businesses, small cultural institutions, or individuals.
None of these have serious access to the Tribunal for low level
disputes. Yet the questions that might arise in their disputes
may be important in the public interest.
A couple of examples (based on real instances,
but all names fictitious) may illustrate this point.
1. Nether Wallop Public Library runs a project
with secondary schools about a local nuclear power station. The
library wants to circulate photocopies of extracts of newspapers
to schoolchildren. This would infringe copyright unless a licence
is obtained, so the library applies to the Local Newspapers Licensing
Society for a licence. The LNLS, as a matter of routine, will
issue a licence only if the licensee pays for seven years' supposed
infringement of copyright before the licence begins. This is unfair
on the Library but the Society insists. The Library has no choice
but to pay for something it doesn't need, because it cannot risk
infringement.
2. Joe Brown, a doctoral student at the University
of Poppleton, is delighted to have his article on a famous modern
English poet accepted for publication in the Journal of Poppletonshire
Studies. The journal editor (a part-time amateur publisher) asks
permission from the poet's publisher for two extracts of her poems
to be reproduced in the article. Joe feels sure that this is unnecessary
because his university has said that fair dealing for criticism
and review is an exception to copyright. But the publisher insists
and Joe has to pay a fee to the poet's publisher in order to see
his article in print.
If appeal were available to an ombudsman in
cases like this, a lot of unnecessary cost and complication for
small-scale users of copyright could be avoided. That would serve
the aim of encouraging creativity— the purpose of copyright.
The need is all the greater now that the internet
offers greater use of creative material to all manner of people—beyond
established publishing and entertainment businesses.
February 2008
|
