The Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) want to operate an Extended Collective Licensing (ECL) scheme and the AOI are broadly in support. Following an application in 2018 they withdrew this in the summer as they are waiting to see what happens with the EU’s Copyright Directive and how that might impact an application. This Directive is being finalised in late 2018.
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) asked us to comment through a formal consultation process, which we did for the initial CRA application. They will listen to what we (and others) have to say to inform the final decision on whether the scheme is approved or not if it is reapplied for.
How the process works at present
At present, if your work is copied by organisations with a CLA licence you are eligible for royalty payment.
The CLA sells photocopying licences to schools, universities, government and businesses to cover photocopying of limited extracts from copyright-protected books on their premises. The licence fees paid are distributed back to the owners of the copyrighted material – for visual artists this is done via DACS.
The CLA are authorised to do this for visual artists by DACS. The AOI (and other organisations) in turn authorise DACS. The CLA collects money on behalf of all rights holders, regardless of their membership of a body such as the AOI.
What is an Extended Collective Licence?
The ECL formalizes the CLA as a licensing body with the ability to collect royalties on behalf of all rights holders, rather than just those who are affiliated to an authorising body.
Why are we supporting it?
The AOI supports a robust and transparent intellectual property regime within the UK to ensure that visual artists can continue to receive just income from their works.
The ECL formalises something that is already in existence, but provides an opportunity to improve it.
Therefore, in our official response to the IPO, we raised several points which we feel should be considered by IPO and CLA. These are:
Awareness of the ECL application: We want to be sure that creators who have rights are informed that an ECL application is happening as some may wish to opt some or all of their works out of it.
We are requesting the CLA to spread their publicity about the scheme across a broad range of communications and explain the scheme in plain English.
Opt Out: The process for opt-outing works must be clear, workable and efficiently operated. This means that the CLA database of works must be accurate, with work easily identifiable under an efficient search system (see ‘unique identifiers’ below).
Embedded works: These are works that are part of a larger work, e.g. an illustration in a text book or journal. It should be clear how embedded works will be dealt with. Currently these works are not identifiable via the CLA database, therefore their use may not be identified for payment under the licensing system.
A universal system of unique identifiers: Books and magazines have identifiers in ISBNs and ISSNs but individual works (embedded images, articles etc) do not. We encourage the CLA to work with creator organisations and other interested parties to develop and agree a universal system of unique identifiers for all relevant works (images, books and articles). These could then be embedded in metadata which would allow for more accurate search and identification of use within the CLA database of work
This is a proposed bill which will address many of the contract issues that creators have to deal with such as clarity in contracts, reasonableness of terms, fair remuneration and moral rights waivers – you can find out more here.
The Repeal Bill ensures that existing EU legislation will be copied across into domestic UK law on the day after Brexit. It repeals the 1972 European Communities Act, which brought Britain into the EU and meant that European law took precedence over laws passed in the British parliament. Parliament will then “amend, repeal and improve” the laws.
We are working to ensure that positive EU legislation in areas such as copyright are maintained by Government and that, to ensure British illustrators can continue to access European markets once we leave the EU, we are encouraging our Government to adopt new copyright legislation being developed through the EU’s Digital Single Market Strategy (see more here).
This is a large Act covering many areas which do not pertain to illustrators – however there are some technicalities which do – for example the online intermediary codes. This is where providers are required to take responsibility for content which may be infringing copyright. AOI support this legislation.
This is an important review which will result in a modern industrial strategy and economy that works for everyone. There is a specific section considering the Creative Industries. We have fed into the consultation for this, articulating the role of illustration and the creative industries within the UK economy and the need for ongoing support to see this thrive. You can read the final report here.
In May 2018 the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) responded to the submissions to the Intellectual Property Call for Views on the Industrial Strategy, which in November 2017 had asked ‘What can we do to encourage innovators to do more collaboration and commercialisation, to stimulate knowledge exchange and promote follow- on innovation?’
The Call set out a number of example proposals IPO had received, including the setting up of a Voluntary Intellectual Property Register which IPO proposed may give creators more ‘legal certainty’. In their 2018 response IPO noted ‘There was a lack of broad support for the establishment of a Voluntary Register for unregistered IP rights, with many respondents noting the additional legal and administrative burdens such a system could introduce.’
There is no requirement for copyright holders to register their IP in the UK, and AOI had stated that we didn’t believe a voluntary register would benefit creators. Our response had mentioned concerns over the additional time and effort required to register works for individual freelancers or small businesses, combined with the potential cost of registering works, which many individual creators will consider an expense they cannot afford. We also queried how the scheme would legally ascertain the veracity of claims of ownership in registered works – this could lead to confusion rather than legal certainty.
Understanding that we are stronger together, we often work in partnership with organisations like us across all creative disciplines in groups such as the Creative Rights Alliance and the British Copyright Council. Both organisations are respected and listened to by government.