I have indeed, and have also had much assistance from IPKat, Own-It and The 1709 Blog, among others.
In terms of the s.52 repeal this wasn't part of Hargreaves (his report doesn't even seem to mention s.52). Rather, it seems from this impact assessment (PDF) that HMG was lobbied heavily by furniture manufacturers in light of the decision in Case C-168/09 Flos v Semeraro (see 1709 Blog article). Lionel Bently thinks that this is a knee-jerk over-reaction and that the CJEU got it wrong anyway, but there we are.
Given that s.52 is going (s.74 ERRA 2013 isn't fully in force yet) my question is how we are dealing with works that previously fell within it. In the committee meeting I quote from, Norman Lamb (the USoS) indicated that there would be a transitional period but in due course s.52 would simply cease to apply:
"We recognise that the repeal of section 52 may have implications for those who manufacture, distribute or sell replicas, such as, for example, replicas of classic home ware, and it is important that we take their concerns into account. [...] We want to minimise adverse impacts on sellers of replicas. Although we recognise the absolute importance of promoting the design industry, we must take account of others who may be affected and minimise such impacts. We will make transitional provisions to allow sellers affected by the change sufficient time to clear their existing stock and to assess which, if any, of their replicas might infringe copyright. My officials have already had constructive meetings with replica furniture makers. They will therefore be allowed enough time to seek from any relevant copyright owners the necessary permission to continue importing and selling replicas, or to modify their supply contracts and products." (Hansard, Column 619)
In the Lords, Viscount Younger of Leckie (the Lords USoS) took a subtly different stance on March 11th:
"There are concerns about what happens to copies of an artistic work made after the expiry of the 25-year design protection but while Section 52 remains in force. I can confirm that any copy made, distributed or imported into the UK or communicated to the public while Section 52 is in effect will be unaffected by the change in the law. However, if, for example, a book containing photographs of artistic works is reprinted after Section 52 is repealed, permission will need to be sought from the relevant rights owners unless a copyright exception applies." (Hansard, Columns 19-20)
In other words, it seems that policy is now going to be that items that didn't infringe copyright by virtue of s.52 won't suddenly become infringing copies when s.52 is actually repealed. But fresh reproductions will infringe. That's certainly Class 99's interpretation.
What this does mean is that owners of 3D printers hoping to safely mine pre-1988 mass-produced products either as items to print in their own right, or as a source of surface decoration, will be disappointed.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-05-15 12:01 pm (UTC)In terms of the s.52 repeal this wasn't part of Hargreaves (his report doesn't even seem to mention s.52). Rather, it seems from this impact assessment (PDF) that HMG was lobbied heavily by furniture manufacturers in light of the decision in Case C-168/09 Flos v Semeraro (see 1709 Blog article). Lionel Bently thinks that this is a knee-jerk over-reaction and that the CJEU got it wrong anyway, but there we are.
Given that s.52 is going (s.74 ERRA 2013 isn't fully in force yet) my question is how we are dealing with works that previously fell within it. In the committee meeting I quote from, Norman Lamb (the USoS) indicated that there would be a transitional period but in due course s.52 would simply cease to apply:
"We recognise that the repeal of section 52 may have implications for those who manufacture, distribute or sell replicas, such as, for example, replicas of classic home ware, and it is important that we take their concerns into account. [...] We want to minimise adverse impacts on sellers of replicas. Although we recognise the absolute importance of promoting the design industry, we must take account of others who may be affected and minimise such impacts. We will make transitional provisions to allow sellers affected by the change sufficient time to clear their existing stock and to assess which, if any, of their replicas might infringe copyright. My officials have already had constructive meetings with replica furniture makers. They will therefore be allowed enough time to seek from any relevant copyright owners the necessary permission to continue importing and selling replicas, or to modify their supply contracts and products." (Hansard, Column 619)
In the Lords, Viscount Younger of Leckie (the Lords USoS) took a subtly different stance on March 11th:
"There are concerns about what happens to copies of an artistic work made after the expiry of the 25-year design protection but while Section 52 remains in force. I can confirm that any copy made, distributed or imported into the UK or communicated to the public while Section 52 is in effect will be unaffected by the change in the law. However, if, for example, a book containing photographs of artistic works is reprinted after Section 52 is repealed, permission will need to be sought from the relevant rights owners unless a copyright exception applies." (Hansard, Columns 19-20)
In other words, it seems that policy is now going to be that items that didn't infringe copyright by virtue of s.52 won't suddenly become infringing copies when s.52 is actually repealed. But fresh reproductions will infringe. That's certainly Class 99's interpretation.
What this does mean is that owners of 3D printers hoping to safely mine pre-1988 mass-produced products either as items to print in their own right, or as a source of surface decoration, will be disappointed.