8 ms·

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-arrangements-for-the-repeal-of-section-52-cdpa https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional

by blowski 11y ago

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-arrangements-for-the-repeal-of-section-52-cdpa https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-arr... > 1. Section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) limits the term of copyright protection for industrially exploited artistic works to 25 years. The Government had previously consulted on how and when to implement the repeal of section 52 CDPA and made a decision to have a transitional period of 5 years from April 2015. This meant that the repeal of section 52 would have come into effect in April 2020 and existing stock which had been made or imported prior to this date would have been unaffected by the repeal. > 2. However, the compatibility of these arrangements with EU law was challenged by way of a judicial review and the Government decided to reconsider the issue, as announced on the Government’s website on 23 July 2015. This consultation covers the areas which are now being considered as part of the repeal of section 52 CDPA.

timthorn 11y ago
So that implies that there is currently in force copyright protection for "industrially exploited artistic works" and that the change is to extend the period of protection. Given that there is not currently an issue with needing a licence to include a protected object in a photo, I'd like to understand what other changes are coming to make this happen - or if Ars has misunderstood the issue.
RobertoG 11y ago
Thanks for the link. I get lost in the legalese but found a easy explanation somewhere: http://intellectualpropertyblog.fieldfisher.com/2015/section-52-cdpa-transitional-arrangements-on-hold-while-government-consults http://intellectualpropertyblog.fieldfisher.com/2015/section... I find interested and sensible this distinction (even if I think 25 years is too much): "When more than 50 copies have been made of such an artistic work, the period of copyright protection is limited to 25 years after the work is first marketed, in comparison to other artistic works which are protected for the life of the author plus 70 years. In practical terms, this means, for example, that furniture manufacturers and importers could start manufacturing and importing furniture that qualified as industrially-manufactured artistic works once the initial 25 year copyright protection had expired." The fact that this rational exception is going to be eliminated in order to harmonize with EU law just push the issue of 'who' to Brussels. It seems that there is a great tradition of harmonizing copyright always to the most draconian terms.

by blowski 11y ago

timthorn 11y ago

So that implies that there is currently in force copyright protection for "industrially exploited artistic works" and that the change is to extend the period of protection. Given that there is not currently an issue with needing a licence to include a protected object in a photo, I'd like to understand what other changes are coming to make this happen - or if Ars has misunderstood the issue.

RobertoG 11y ago

Thanks for the link. I get lost in the legalese but found a easy explanation somewhere: http://intellectualpropertyblog.fieldfisher.com/2015/section-52-cdpa-transitional-arrangements-on-hold-while-government-consults http://intellectualpropertyblog.fieldfisher.com/2015/section... I find interested and sensible this distinction (even if I think 25 years is too much): "When more than 50 copies have been made of such an artistic work, the period of copyright protection is limited to 25 years after the work is first marketed, in comparison to other artistic works which are protected for the life of the author plus 70 years. In practical terms, this means, for example, that furniture manufacturers and importers could start manufacturing and importing furniture that qualified as industrially-manufactured artistic works once the initial 25 year copyright protection had expired." The fact that this rational exception is going to be eliminated in order to harmonize with EU law just push the issue of 'who' to Brussels. It seems that there is a great tradition of harmonizing copyright always to the most draconian terms.