Duration of Copyright Issues
Section 12 to 15 of the CDPA 1988 provides the duration of copyright pertaining to different works. Section 12 provides copyright duration for dramatic, literary and artistic works; the copyright for dramatic, fictional, and musical works expires seventy years after the death of the author who created these works. Where the author of these works is unknown, the copyright expires seventy years from the date these works were published or created. Section 13A of the CDPA Act provides the copyright duration for sound recordings; copyright for such recordings expires fifty years after the recording was created. If the recording is published within the same period, the copyrights will expire fifty years from the date the recording was published. If the recording is not published within the period but released to the public, the copyrights will expire fifty years from the time they were released to the audience (Wing 2011).
Section 13B of the UK copyright act provides copyright duration for films; the copyright for films expires seventy years after the last of the following persons die: the director of the film, the author of the script, the author of the dialogue, or the creator of the music used in the movie. Section 14 gives copyright duration for broadcasts; this section states that the copyright for a broadcast expires fifty years after a program is broadcasted for the first time. In a situation whereby, the creator of the broadcast is not a citizen within the European Economic Area, the copyright duration will be determined by the laws in the country of origin of the author. Section 15A of the CDPA gives a precise definition of the meaning of the country of origin with regard to copyright laws. If artistic works are first published in a country that is a signatory to the Bern Convention, and the works are not published anywhere else at the same time, then the first country that published the works becomes the country of origin (Wing 2011).
Section 154 of the UK copyright laws provides the qualifications for copyright protection by referring to the author. Works qualify for protection if, at the time they were being created, the authors were British citizens, British nationals overseas, citizens from territories dependent on Britain, British subjects or people protected by Britain under the Nationality Act. A body established under British law also qualifies for copyright protection under this act (Wing 2011). Both Media Limited and DBC television are corporate bodies established under the UK laws; therefore, under section 154c their works qualify for copyright protection. Section 155 of the copyright act gives the qualification for copyright protection by referring to the country in which the works were first published. Under this section, an artistic, literary, musical or dramatic work, a film or a sound recording, qualify for copyright protection if they were first published in the United Kingdom, or if they were published in any of the countries to which this provision applies. The works produced by Media Limited were first published in the UK and hence, they qualify for copyright protection. On the other hand, DBC television was the first to broadcast these works hence their broadcasts qualify for copyright protection.
Works in Question
The works in question are the animated children’s series “The Zoo” that was produced by Media limited, the voices of famous actors, the Lawrence Lion dolls, and the Broadcasts by DBC. These works are still protected by the UK copyright laws because the Zoo is a television series whose broadcast has just ended, this means that seventy years have not passed, and the following persons involved in the production are not dead: the director of the film, the author of the script, the author of the dialogue, or the creator of the music used in the film. The voices of the famous actor are still protected by copyright laws because section 13A states that sound recordings expire fifty years after they are created, published or released to the public, and this has not happened. The production of the Lawrence Lion dolls is still in progress and this means that these dolls are protected by the copyright laws under section 12. The broadcasts by the DBC are still protected by the copyright laws as provided for by section 14 because fifty years have not passed from the time DBC made their first broadcast of “The Zoo”.
Under section 3 to section 8 of the CDPA, the Zoo produced by the Media Limited qualifies in the film category. This is because section 5B of the UK copyright laws defines a film as a recording of any type that contains moving images, and the soundtrack accompanying the moving images is considered part of the film. The voices of the famous actors used in the animation qualify as sound recordings under section 5A of the copyright laws. Section 5A of the copyright laws defines sound recordings as a recording made of sounds that enable their reproduction (Moffatt 2006). The Lawrence Lion dolls qualify as artistic works under section 4 of the copyright laws. Section 4 of the copyright laws defines artistic works as sculptures, photographic works or collages, and this definition applies regardless of their quality. Building models, buildings or architectural works are also defined as artistic works by this section. Finally, works of artistic craftsmanship also qualify as artistic works, and this is the category in which Lawrence Lion dolls fall because they are hand-made. The broadcasts made by the DBC television falls under section 6 of the copyright act; section 6 defines a broadcast as an electronic transmission of sounds, visual images or information of any type.
The above works qualify as original copyright works because they meet the requirements stipulated in section 153 of CDPA 1988. This section stipulates that for any work to qualify for copyright protection, the author of the works must be a UK citizen as provided for in section 154, the works must have originated in the UK as provided for in section 155. With regard to broadcasts, they should originate in the UK as provided in section 156 of the UK Copyright Act. In addition, a copyright is automatically granted to companies or individuals in the UK after they have created a piece of work. In order for a piece of work to qualify for copyright, it must be seen as original, and it must also show a certain degree of skill and labor. Under the CDPA, the first owner of the copyright is awarded to an author or collective author who created the work. In a situation where the work is created by individual underemployment, the first owner of the work will be the company (Lester & Mitchell 1988). The works produced by Media Limited qualify as original copyright works even if they were produced by its employees.
Who Owns the Works?
Section 9 of the CDPA defines an author as an individual, who creates a piece of work, and with regard to sound recording, the producer is the owner, while in films, the principal director and the producer are the owners. In broadcasting, the individual making the broadcast is regarded as the owner of the broadcast. In the case of computer-generated artistic, musical, dramatic, or literal works, the author is considered to be the individual who arranged for the creation of the works (Derclaye 2010). The Zoo is an animated film and therefore, it falls under the category of computer-generated artistic works. Media Limited is the company that arranged for the creation of the Zoo hence the company is the owner of the animation regardless of the fact that this work was created by its employees. DBC television obtains rights to broadcast “The Zoo” making it the owner of the broadcast. The sounds of famous actors are owned by the producer of the Zoo that is the Media limited. The Lawrence Lion dolls are also owned by the Media Limited because the company licensed the copyright to a third party to manufacture the dolls as provided for in section 90 of the copyright act. Section 90 allows transmission of copyright by law or by testamentary disposition.
When it comes to the ownership of copyright, the commonly arising issue is that of employees. The CDPA stipulates that the copyright of the works produced by an employee in the course of employment belongs to the employer. In some cases, it has been difficult to determine whether the works an employer is seeking to copyright were created by an employee in the course of employment or not. This is because a piece of work can also be created by an employee in his or her spare time. The employee issue was seen in the case Macdonald and Evans versus Stevenson Jordan and Harrison Limited. However, section 23 allows journalists to personally use works produced in the course of employment to a certain extent as evident in the Beloff versus Pressdam Limited’s case (Lai 2000).
Primary and Secondary Infringements
Section 16 of the Copyright Act, states that only the owner of the copyright has the authority to copy the work or allow the public to access the work in one way or the other. Section 17 states that copying artistic works, dramatic pieces, films, and broadcasts among others, constitutes an infringement of the copyright law. Section 18 of the Act states that putting any works into circulation that had not been previously put by the author and issuing copies to individuals or masses constitute an infringement of copyrights. Section 18A states that lending or renting of copies of works to the public constitutes an infringement of copyright through lending or renting (Bridge 2010).
Carl and his family infringed on the broadcast copyright held by the DBC television and first ownership copyright held by the Media limited under section 17 by taping from the DBC broadcasts. The act of Carl lending these tapes to Sheila also constitutes an infringement of copyrights as stated in section 18A that prohibits lending or renting copies of works to the public. David’s actions of making several copies of these tapes and selling them in his store violate copyright as provided for in section 18 prohibits the distribution of works that have not been previously put into circulation by the author (Colston & Middleton 2005). The act of Juan producing dolls that resemble Lawrence Lion dolls is a violation of the copyright act as stipulated in section 17 that prohibits the copying of artistic works. Import Limited also violated copyright laws under section 23 of the CDPA by importing Lawrence-like dolls from Spain. Section 23 states that secondary infringement of copyright occurs when an individual hire, sells or exposes counterfeit products for sale.
Defense to Copyright Infringement
Section 28A of the CDPA stipulates that making a brief temporary copy of a work does not constitute an infringement of the copyright act, provided that it is lawfully used, and not for economic gains. Use of various types of works for research purposes according to section 29 does not constitute an infringement of copyright laws as long as the research is non-commercial. Fairly reviewing of criticizing various types of works according to section 30 is not a violation of copyright laws as long as the work has been available to the public. Section 31 of the copyright act states that copyright is not infringed if work is incidentally included in an artistic work (Sabbagh 2012). Section 28A can defend the action of Carl and his family of recording “The Zoo” because they copied the work for their personal entertainment, which is a lawful use, and they did not intend to sell the tapes or earn any economic gains. Currently, the remedies available in the UK for infringement include obtaining an injunction to stop further contravention, doing an account of the profits made by the infringer, paying damages for losses incurred, and demanding that the infringer surrenders all the infringed material to the copyright owner (Sabbagh 2012).
References
Bridge, B 2010, Intellectual property, Pitman Publishing imprint, London.
Colston, C & Middleton, K 2005, Modern intellectual property law, Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wiltshire.
Derclaye, E 2010, Copyright and cultural heritage: Preservation and access to works in a digital world, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Lai, S 2000, Copyright protection of computer software in the United Kingdom, Hart Publications, Oxford.
Lester, DA & Mitchell, P 1988, Joynson-Hicks on UK copyright law, Sweet & Maxwell, London.
Moffatt, J 2006, Employment law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sabbagh, D 2012, ‘Battle for Internet: British copyright law and internet realities’, theguardian, Web.
Wing, MP 2011, Intellectual property law, Solent University Press, Southampton.