Written evidence submitted by Norman Childs

Our copyright and moral rights are artists' human rights, guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The CDPA 1988 moral rights exceptions breach our artists' human rights.

An undefined Parody exception would breach our artists' human right to object to derogatory treatment of our work Any law which enables commercial use of our work in any way without our knowledge or permission, including by wide-ranging Extended Collective Licensing (ECL), would breach our human rights as well as international copyright law, and such law is forbidden by the Human Rights Act 1988 unless the breach is in the 'general interest'.

It is not in the 'general interest' to make such exceptions, because in the modern world the majority of the population will be negatively affected, especially when the IPO's 'growth' case is unproven (the economic Impact supporting paper is a work of fiction, little better than schoolboy economics, as recently pointed out in The Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/24/ipo_economic_justification_of_ha

rgreaves_wtf/

Preservation and cultural access to orphan works can be achieved by other means than breaching our human rights Exceptions to our human rights to allow commercial use of Orphan Works and ECL would be disproportionate - they would fail the three-stage legal test for proportionality (http://regulatorylaw.co.uk/Proportionality.html)

Non-commercial use of Orphan Works can stimulate growth - the IPO said so at last week's meeting.

Repeal of Schedule 1, clause 1(c) of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which exempts IP from fair contract law, is not only necessary to bring IP into parity with physical property and will not only fix broken IP markets, but will also help the Cultural Heritage Sector and academia who complain about the unfair T&C they're subject to by corporate rights-holders.