You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Ad Hoc Government Discussion Papers >>
2018 >>
[2018] NZAHGovDP 2
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Issues paper. Review of the Copyright Act 1994 [2018] NZAHGovDP 2 (21 November 2018)
Last Updated: 25 April 2020
Issues Paper
Review of the Copyright Act 1994
November 2018
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
(MBIE)
Hikina Whakatutuki - Lifting to make successful
MBIE develops and delivers policy, services,
advice and regulation to support economic growth and the prosperity and
wellbeing of
New Zealanders.
MBIE combines the former Ministries of Economic Development, Science +
Innovation, and the Departments of Labour, and Building and
Housing.
More information
www.mbie.govt.nz 0800
20 90 20
Information,
examples and answers to your questions about the topics covered here can be
found on our website www.mbie.govt.nz
or by calling us free on 0800 20 90 20.
Disclaimer
This document is a guide only. It should not be used as a substitute for
legislation or legal advice. The Ministry of Business, Innovation
and Employment
is not responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of
information in this document, or for any errors
or omissions.
ISBN (online) 978-1-98-853592-0
November 2018
©Crown Copyright 2018
The material contained in this report is subject to Crown copyright
protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected
material
may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring
specific permission. This is subject to the material
being reproduced accurately
and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context.
Where
the material is being published or issued to others, the source and
copyright status should be acknowledged. The permission to reproduce
Crown
copyright protected material does not extend to any material in this report that
is identified as being the copyright of a
third party. Authorisation to
reproduce such material should be obtained from the copyright holders.
Permission to reproduce
Crown Copyright ©
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Important notice
The opinions contained in this document are those of the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment and do not reflect official
Government policy. Readers
are advised to seek specific legal advice from a qualified professional person
before undertaking any
action in reliance on the contents of this publication.
The contents of this discussion paper must not be construed as legal advice.
The
Ministry does not accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever whether in
contract, tort, equity or otherwise for any action
taken as a result of reading,
or reliance placed on the Ministry because of having read, any part, or all, of
the information in
this discussion paper or for any error, inadequacy,
deficiency, flaw in or omission from the discussion paper.
ISBN (online) 978-1-98-853592-0
How to have your say
Submissions process
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) seeks written
submissions on the issues raised in this document by 5pm
on Friday 5 April
2019.
Your submission may respond to any or all of these issues. Where possible,
please include evidence to support your views, for example
references to
independent research, facts and figures, or relevant
examples.
Please use the online portal for submissions provided
at: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/consultation-
on-copyright-act-issues-paper.
This will help us to collate submissions and ensure that your views are
fully considered.
Alternatively, you can make your submission by sending your submission as a
Microsoft Word document using the template provided on
the webpage above. Please
include your contact details in any correspondence accompanying your
submission.
Please direct any questions that you have in relation to the submissions process
to
CopyrightActReview@mbie.govt.nz
Use of information
The information provided in submissions will be used in MBIE’s policy
development process, and will inform advice to Ministers
on whether the
Copyright Act 1994 should be reformed. We may contact submitters directly if we
require clarification of any matters
in submissions.
Release of information
MBIE intends to publish content from submissions received on MBIE’s website.
MBIE will consider you to have consented to this publication by making a
submission, unless you clearly specify otherwise in your
submission.
The online portal for submissions enables you to identify any information in
your submission that is confidential or you otherwise
wish us not to publish. If
you are making a submission by any other means and it contains information that
should not be published,
please:
- indicate
this on the front of the submission, with any confidential information clearly
marked within the text
- provide
a separate version excluding the relevant information for publication on our
website.
iii
Submissions remain subject to request under the Official Information Act
1982. Please set out clearly in any correspondence accompanying your
submission if you have any objection to the release of any information
in the
submission, and in particular, which parts you consider should be withheld,
together with the reasons for withholding the
information. MBIE will take such
objections into account and will consult with submitters when responding to
requests under the Official Information Act.
Private information
The Privacy Act 1993 establishes certain principles with respect to the
collection, use and disclosure of information about individuals by various
agencies,
including MBIE. Any personal information you supply to MBIE in the
course of making a submission will only be used for the purpose
of assisting in
the development of policy advice in relation to this review. Please clearly
indicate in the online portal for submissions
or in any correspondence
accompanying your submission if you do not wish your name, or any other personal
information, to be included
in any summary of submissions that MBIE may
publish.
iv
Contents
Glossary and Acronyms
Berne Convention
|
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic
Works
|
CMO
|
Collective Management Organisation
|
CPTPP
|
|
GLAM
|
Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums
|
Hague Agreement
|
Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial
Designs
|
IPONZ
|
Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand
|
ISP
|
Internet Service Provider
|
MBIE
|
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
|
MCH
|
Ministry of Culture and Heritage
|
TPM
|
Technological Protection Measure
|
TPP Act
|
Trans-Pacific Partnership Amendment Act 2016
|
TRIPS Agreement
|
|
UGC
|
User Generated Content
|
WIPO
|
World Intellectual Property Organization
|
Foreword
Copyright affects all of us.
When you write a personal email, take a photograph of friends, doodle on a piece
of paper or record a
video on your smartphone, you are producing a copyright
work. When you read a book, listen to music, watch a play, use computer
software,
watch a sports broadcast or stream a movie, you are using copyright
works. Copyright gives creators of copyright works the right
to prevent others
copying or distributing their works without their permission.
The vast reach of copyright – and the rapid pace of technological change
today – makes it critical to ensure that our
copyright regime is working
the way it should: to enhance our collective social, cultural and economic
well-being.
It has been more than a decade since the last significant review of the Act was
completed. A lot has changed in that time. We have
seen developments in
artificial intelligence, data collection, virtual reality, 3-D printing and
more. Kiwis are increasingly consuming
digital content over the internet,
sharing platforms and streaming services. We need to ensure our copyright regime
is robust enough
– and flexible enough – to deal with these challenges.
We also need to ensure that our copyright regime interfaces well with other
regulatory regimes. The Issues Paper seeks your views
on two such issues. The
first is whether industrial designs should be able to be protected under both
the Copyright Act and the Designs
Act. The second is how the Government should
coordinate the Copyright Act review with policy development on the protection of
mātauranga
Māori and taonga works in response to the recommendations
of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report entitled Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A
Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori
Culture and Identity (the Wai 262 report).
It is critical that we hear your views on the issues included in this Issues
Paper. The information and evidence you provide will
help the Government better
understand what is important to you and the key issues you face. Once we have a
good understanding of
this, we will consider what appropriate changes to the
Copyright Act need to be made.
I am pleased to release this Issues Paper for public consultation and look
forward to wide engagement with the review.
Hon Kris Faafoi
Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
Part 1 – Purpose and context
- In
this Part we outline the purpose and context for reviewing the Copyright Act
1994 including:
- why and
how the Act is being reviewed
- how
your submission will help inform the development of options for reforming the
Act
- what
this Issue Paper covers.
Introduction
- The
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is reviewing the
Copyright Act 1994. The Copyright Act provides a set of intellectual property
rights called ‘copyright’
to authors and producers of creative works
(eg books, recorded music, fine art, digital art, movies, educational
literature, software
code) to encourage the creation and dissemination of
creative works.
- As
significant technological and market changes are impacting the way we create,
distribute, communicate and use content, it is important
to ensure our copyright
regime is achieving its objectives in a rapidly changing digital world.
- A
decision was made to launch a review in mid-2017, with the release of the terms
of reference for the review.1
- This
issues paper is the first stage of public consultation in the review of the
Copyright Act. This stage involves identifying problems
with the way the
Copyright Act is operating or opportunities to improve its operation. It is also
important to identify where the
Act works well.
- The
best way to provide your views in response to this Issues Paper is to write a
submission on it. You can find out how to do this
in the ‘How to have your
say’ section above and on page 6.
- There
will also be opportunities to participate in public engagements.
You can find out about the public meetings we are holding while this
Issues Paper is out for consultation on MBIE’s
website.
- The
length of this Issues Paper reflects the complexity of the copyright regime and
variety of potential issues we need to test and
gather evidence about. Some of
you will not want to submit on everything this Issues Paper covers and will
instead submit only on
the questions most relevant to you (see the recap of
questions on page 118). Some of you will
want to respond to all of the questions. Either way, if you have something to
say, we would like to hear from
you.
1 See www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/intellectual-property/copyright/review-copyright-act-1994
for the terms of reference.
- Submissions
are due by 5pm on Friday 5 April 2019. Queries on the Copyright
Act review can be sent to CopyrightActReview@mbie.govt.nz.
Context for the review
Legislative context
- The
Copyright Act was passed in 1994. The content of the Copyright Act, and the
drafting of its provisions, drew heavily on United
Kingdom’s Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
- There
have been a number of reviews and changes to the Copyright Act since 1994. These
are summarised in Annex 1. The most significant review of the Act took
place from 2001 to 2004 in response to new technologies, in particular the
emergence
of the internet. The review resulted in the Copyright (New
Technologies) Amendment Act 2008.
- The
changes that were introduced were intended to be reviewed in 2013. This review
was put on hold because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP)
negotiations. The TPP negotiations concluded in October 2015 and the TPP
Agreement was signed in February 2016. Copyright changes
required under the
TPP2 were enacted (but not implemented) in December
2016.
- In
March 2018, New Zealand signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for
Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a new treaty between 11 of the 12
members of the original TPP (excluding the United States). The CPTPP suspended
many of the original
TPP copyright
obligations.3
The Creative Sector Study
- In
December 2016 MBIE released the Copyright and the Creative Sector report
(the Creative Sector Study).4 The Creative Sector Study
provides valuable information about how works are created, distributed,
communicated and consumed in New
Zealand in the context of a rapidly changing
digital environment and an increasingly online and borderless
world.
- MBIE
led the study, in consultation with the Ministry for Culture and Heritage
(MCH). The aim was to deepen government’s understanding of the role
of copyright in the creative sector in New Zealand, helping
to build a solid
evidence base before launching a formal legislative
review.
2 These include extending copyright term to life plus
70 years and introducing more comprehensive protections for technological
protection
measures, copyright management information and encrypted satellite
signals, and new rights for performers.
3 The suspended provisions include a requirement to extend the
copyright term and requirements to provide
more comprehensive protection for technological protection measures, rights
management information and encrypted satellite signals.
4 See Copyright and the Creative Sector: Study of the Role of
Copyright and Registered Designs in the Creator
Sector in New Zealand at http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/intellectual-
property/copyright/copyright-and-the-creative-sector/study-of-the-role-of-copyright-and-designs-in-the-
creative-sector.
- The
study focussed on the life cycle of a creative work – from creation, to
production, to distribution, to consumption, capturing
views from a range of
creative sector participants through face-to-face interviews, workshops, an
online survey of the sector and
an online consumer focus
group.
The international context
- New
Zealand is party to a number of international agreements that relate to
copyright. These agreements set the framework for countries’
copyright
settings and set minimum requirements in some areas.5 Our copyright
regime is therefore broadly similar to most overseas jurisdictions.6
In areas that are not governed by international obligations, or where
flexibility within the international framework exists, different
jurisdictions
take different approaches.7 Some of these areas are hotly
debated.
- Many
dealings with copyright works occur across borders, so copyright rules should
not be considered in isolation from our key trading
partners. Foreign companies
also play a significant role in the creation and distribution of a large amount
of content that is available
in New Zealand. Available data suggests that we
import far more copyright works than we export. This is a factor we take in
account
when assessing the net effect of any changes to our
settings.
- There
have been recent significant copyright reform processes in comparable
jurisdictions like Canada, the United Kingdom, Singapore,
Australia and the
European Union. We will consider the approaches that other jurisdictions take as
part of the review.
The Treaty of Waitangi and the Wai 262 report
- Article
2 of the Treaty of Waitangi refers to the Crown guaranteeing Māori
(including iwi, hapū and whānau) “the
full, exclusive and
undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other
properties which they collectively
or individually
possess”
(English version) and “te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou
kainga me o ratou taonga katoa” (Māori version).
- The
Waitangi Tribunal’s report entitled Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report
into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture
and Identity (the Wai 262 report) examined, among other things, how
the intellectual property system protects mātauranga Māori, taonga
works and taonga-derived
works.
5 See paragraphs 82
to 98, which discuss New
Zealand’s international obligations.
6 For example, the minimum terms of copyright protection are set
by United Nations-level international agreements (generally 50 years,
or life
plus 50 years).
7 Examples include the nature and scope of safe harbour schemes to
facilitate the operation of content platforms and ISPs, the framing
of
exceptions and limitations, and the development of new types of remedies and
enforcement procedures, like website blocking, to
deal with on-line infringement
and copyright piracy.
- In
the report, the Waitangi Tribunal recommended that mechanisms be put in place to
provide greater protection for the kaitiaki interest
in mātauranga
Māori, taonga works and taonga-derived works. The Wai 262 report is
available on the Waitangi Tribunal website.8
- The
Wai 262 claim raised a number of complex issues about the nature of intellectual
property, the nature of the kaitiaki relationship
with taonga works,
taonga-derived works and mātauranga Māori, and how the interface
between the two systems should operate.
- Given
the overlap between copyright and the Wai 262 recommendations, it will be
important to consider how and when the Government’s
policy on the
protection of taonga works, taonga-derived works and mātauranga Māori
should be developed. We discuss the
Wai 262 recommendations in more detail in
Section 2 of Part 8 of this paper.
Why are we reviewing the Copyright regime?
- Copyright
issues are complex, pervasive and rarely tested in the New Zealand courts. We
need to monitor and update our copyright law
to ensure it is meeting its
objectives (discussed in Part 3), its meaning is clear and it is no more complex
than necessary.
- People
have been informing the Government for a number of years of a multitude of
problems with our copyright regime. The problems
we have heard with the
Copyright Act include that it:
- is
unclear, overly complex, inflexible and difficult to understand
- over-protects
creative works
- under-protects
creative works
- has not
kept up with technological development and change
- does
not adequately protect Māori taonga works and cultural
expressions.
- Copyright
is a form of regulation. It prohibits people from doing things that they would
otherwise be free to do. We have heard that
people are being prevented from
using copyright works in socially-beneficial ways (for example, using satire to
make a political
statement). It is therefore important to ensure that
copyright’s default rule (do not copy or distribute without the copyright
owner’s permission) does not apply where there is little or no public
policy rationale for prohibiting the relevant behaviour,
like copying that is
necessary to facilitate basic functionality of digital
technologies.
- It
is also important to review the Copyright Act in the context of new and emerging
technologies like streaming or artificial intelligence,
and new ways of creating
and distributing content like user-generated content. Outdated laws can create
uncertainty and a lack of
respect for the rule of law, which can result in costs
to creators, copyright owners, licensees, users and New Zealand as a
whole.
8 The WAI 262 report is available at the Waitangi
Tribunal website at Volume 1:
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68356416/KoAotearoaTeneiTT2Vol1W.pdf
; Volume 2:
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68356606/KoAotearoaTeneiTT2Vol2W.pdf.
- This
review will enable the Government to assess these problems from a range of
perspectives and determine what, if any, action should
be taken to address
them.
- We
will seek to consider copyright problems from all perspectives, whether these be
the perspectives of creators, distributors, users,
consumers or anybody else
affected by copyright. We will need your help to do this properly – so
please take the opportunity
to participate in the review and make your views
heard.
How we intend to review the copyright regime
- In
the review of the Copyright Act, we intend to:
- consider
what the copyright regime is intended to achieve
- assess
the performance of the Copyright Act against these objectives
- identify
barriers to achieving the objectives, and the level of impact that these
barriers have.
- The
first stage of the review is the release of this Issues Paper, in which we seek
your views on the proposed objectives for the
copyright regime and on the nature
of problems we should consider addressing.
- Many
of the issues raised in this paper are exploratory. Our focus has been on
highlighting key issues rather than a close examination
of every provision or
detailed analysis of the issue.
- We
are interested in your views on the potential issues we discuss and any evidence
you have to support your position. We are also
interested in hearing about any
other issues with the copyright regime not covered in this
paper.
Your submissions will help inform the development of policy
options
- We
seek your views to improve our understanding of how the copyright regime
operates in practice and the key issues and opportunities
for change. Your
responses will inform our preparation of a second consultation document that
will set out the policy options being
considered for
reform.
- Some
things to think about in your submissions are:
- Your
experiences can be used as evidence of a problem and can be a valuable source of
information. This type of evidence will be more
compelling if you describe the
practical impacts of the current regime and the nuts and bolts of how it works,
eg as a result of
x, I need to do y, which costs me
z amount of time and/or $.
- Any
economic analyses provided should aim to get at causation (ie that which can be
attributed to copyright), should be independently
peer reviewed and clearly
state any assumptions and sensitivities in the analysis.
- The
primary purpose of this Issues Paper is to seek information about, and evidence
of, problems with the Copyright Act. Although
the paper does not consider nor
discuss
preferred options for addressing problems with the Act, we welcome ideas and
suggestions on how the problems you have identified
might be
addressed.
- Submissions
on the issues paper are due by 5pm Friday 5 April 2019.
The review process
- After
consultation on this document, we will analyse feedback, submissions and any
other evidence before making recommendations to
Ministers on:
- what
the objectives of our copyright regime should be
- the
issues within our copyright regime that should be addressed or prioritised in
this review.
- If
Cabinet agrees that there are issues in the regime that should be addressed, the
next stage will involve formulating a preferred
approach to addressing those
issues. An outline of the intended review process is below. The stages in green
represent opportunities
for you to provide your input into the
process.
- Each
stage in the above process (other than the Select Committee process) is subject
to a decision by Cabinet. Cabinet will decide
whether consulting on an Exposure
Draft of a bill is necessary after we have consulted on the Options
Paper.
What does this Issues Paper cover?
- In
Part 2, we cover the basic concepts of copyright and provide information on our
copyright regime that is essential to understanding
the issues explored in the
rest of this paper.
- In
Part 3, we set out proposed objectives for the copyright regime and seek your
views on these objectives and our high level understanding
of the current
situation.
- In
Parts 4-8, we seek your views on whether there are problems with the way the
copyright regime is working. These parts focus on
potential issues that have
been raised – through the Creative Sector Study process and directly with
us by stakeholders.
- We
seek your views on:
Part 4 – Rights
- the
criteria for protection and protected works
- allocation
of rights, Crown copyright and term of protection
- the
exclusive rights and infringement provisions
- moral
rights
- performers’
rights
- technological
protection measures and geographic market segmentation.
Part 5 – Exceptions and limitations
- fair
dealing
- libraries
and archives
- educational
institutions
- other
uses of works
- contracting
out of exceptions
- internet
service provider liability. Part 6 – Transactions (assignment and
licensing)
- the
role of Collective Management Organisations
- resolving
licensing disputes and the role of the Copyright Tribunal
- use of
social media platforms
- other
licensing mechanisms
- orphan
works
- licensing
stacking.
Part 7 – Enforcement
- barriers
to taking legal action
- groundless
threats of legal action
- border
protection measures
- infringing
file sharing regime
- additional
measures to address online infringement
- who
should bears the cost of enforcing copyright in the digital
environment.
Part 8 – Other issues
- relationship
between copyright and registered design protection
- Hague
Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague
Agreement).
- copyright
and taonga works.
- In
Part 9 we provide a recap of the questions asked in this Issues Paper.
Part 2 – What is copyright?
- Copyright
is a form of intellectual property right that gives authors and producers of
creative works the right to determine who can
reproduce, distribute and
communicate those works.
- Copyright
arises automatically when original9 works are created (regardless of
the work’s quality, creative merit or cultural value) without any need for
formal mechanisms
like registration. Many ordinary everyday activities give rise
to works that copyright protects, eg emails, writing a report, using
a smart
phone to take a photograph or recording a video.
- Copyright
gives copyright owners the exclusive right to:
- Copy
the work (eg recording, reproducing or downloading a copy or creating a new
work that copies a substantial part of the original.
- Issue
copies of the work to the public (eg making copies of works that are not
already in circulation available for purchase or rent).
- Perform,
play or show the work in public (eg a band performing live music at a bar,
actors performing a play at a theatre, a retail store playing background music
or a cinema
showing a movie).
- Communicate
the work to the public (eg a TV station broadcasting a sports match, a radio
station broadcasting or live streaming an interview via radio or webcast and
a
person posting a video, photograph or story on social media).
- Adapt
the work (eg translating a novel from one language to another or adapting a
novel into a movie script).
- Authorise
others to do any of the above things.
- These
rights form the core bundle of rights that we call
‘copyright’.
The duration of copyright
- Copyright
is provided for a limited period of time. Once copyright expires in a work,
people are free to use it as they like. The
term of copyright differs depending
on the kind of creative work.
9 The test for originality is discussed in Part 4
– Rights, paragraph 119
Table 1: Duration of copyright for kinds of works
Kind of work
|
When copyright expires
|
Literary works, including novels, song lyrics, emails, blogs and
computer programs
Dramatic works, including dance, mime and scenario or script for a film
Musical works, including sheet music and other musical compositions
Graphic works, including drawings, paintings and maps
Artistic works, including graphic works (described above), photographs,
sculptures, models and works of architecture
|
50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies
OR
for computer generated works, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in
which the work was made
|
Sound recordings, including recorded music and podcasts
Films, including the visual aspects of movies, TV shows, webseries and
home videos
|
50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made or
was made available to the public (whichever is later)
|
Communication works, including the broadcast of TV programmes
|
50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the communication work
was first communicated to the public
|
Typographical arrangements of published editions, including the style,
composition, layout and general appearance of a page of a published work such as
magazine design styling, layout
of a newspaper or book cover
|
25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the edition is first
published
|
Why do we give people copyright in their works?
- Copyright
is intended to incentivise the creation and dissemination of creative works.
Creative works are often expensive and time-intensive
to create but easy to copy
or use. For example, a novel can take years for a person to write but can be
copied and sold by others
in minutes. Without the ability to protect works from
unauthorised copying or distribution, there would be fewer incentives to spend
the time, energy and resources required to create and disseminate
works.
- In
other words, in New Zealand we take a ‘utilitarian’ or
‘economic’ approach when developing our copyright
law. Under this
approach (which countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the
United States also take) copyright is
primarily intended to incentivise the
creation and dissemination of works that would not otherwise be created or
disseminated.
- This
differs to the approach that some other jurisdictions take, particularly in
Europe, which have followed a ‘natural rights’
approach. This
approach is based on the idea that the
creators of creative works have a ‘natural’ right to profit from the
fruits of their artistic endeavours.
- Some
aspects of the natural rights approach have filtered in to New Zealand law
through international obligations, like the introduction
of moral rights for
authors.
The copyright paradox
- There
is a tension at the heart of copyright. Its primary aim is to incentivise people
to
produce and distribute creative works for society’s use and benefit. But
the main tool it uses to achieve this – providing
copyright owners with
the bundle of rights listed in paragraph 48 above – effectively enables
copyright owners to limit the distribution of their creative works. In economic
terms, giving copyright
to the creator generally involves an ‘opportunity
cost’ for those who may otherwise enjoy unimpeded use of the work
(including
other creators).
- This
is why, in addition to giving rights to incentivise people to create and
distribute creative works, copyright regimes also try
to facilitate access to
creative works for the benefit of society. This is primarily done through:
- carefully
considering what should be protected by copyright, when the rights should arise
and what rights should be given
- limiting the
term of copyright so that copyright works become available for anybody to
reproduce and use at the end of their copyright
term
- establishing
exceptions to permit uses of works for social, cultural or economic purposes (eg
educational and cultural activities
performed by schools, archives and
libraries).10
How does copyright compare to other forms of intellectual
property protection?
- Copyright
is a form of intellectual property. The table below sets out the main types of
intellectual property, their maximum term
of protection and whether they are
protected automatically or only by registration.
Table 2:
Comparison between copyright and other forms of intellectual property protection
Type of intellectual property
|
What’s protected?
|
Term
|
Registration required?
|
Copyright
|
Original works, including written content, artworks, music, films etc.
Protects expression of ideas
|
Up to the life of the author plus 50 years
|
No
|
Registered designs
|
New features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament as applied to an
object
|
Up to 15 years
|
Yes, with IPONZ
|
Trade marks
|
Branding (eg logos/words) – protects use in trade
|
Renewable indefinitely
|
Yes, with IPONZ
|
Patents
|
New inventions – protects products and how they are
manufactured
|
Up to 20 years
|
Yes, with IPONZ
|
Plant variety rights
|
New cultivated varieties of plants
|
Up to 23 years
|
Yes, with IPONZ
|
Geographical indications
|
Origin labelling for wine and spirits
|
Renewable indefinitely
|
Yes, with IPONZ
|
10 See Part 5 (Copyright Exceptions) for examples of
the types of uses the Copyright Act facilitates for the benefit of society.
What does copyright not do?
Copyright
does not protect ideas
- Copyright
protects the expression of an idea but not the idea itself.11 Article
9.2 of the TRIPS Agreement requires member states to take this approach. To
illustrate the difference between ideas and expression,
consider the following
example: a common literary genre is the ‘whodunit’ concept where a
detective solves a serious
crime, usually a murder. This concept can be
considered the ‘idea’ behind such works. There have been many
expressions
of this idea, for example the ‘Inspector Morse’,
‘Midsomer Murders’, and ‘Death in Paradise’
TV series.
The idea of the ‘whodunit’ is not protected by copyright, but the
many expressions of it are.
Copyright does not specifically target the creation or
dissemination of New Zealand cultural works
- Copyright
is a very basic and egalitarian tool. It applies to all works, regardless of
their quality, level of investment, or cultural
value. It is not a tool that is
generally used to provide targeted support for the development of New Zealand
cultural works. The
Government does this through other means like funding from
the MCH, Creative New Zealand, NZ On Air, and the New Zealand Film Commission
etc.12
Copyright does not guarantee an income
- Copyright
does not guarantee that creators will make money from the economic and moral
rights they have in their creative works. It
only provides them with the
opportunity to negotiate payment in return for their authorising others (by
licensing or transferring
copyright) to use their work (eg make copies available
to the public). Their ability to derive an income from these arrangements
largely depends on the public’s demand for the work. While some creative
works may make large profits for their creators, many
others will deliver little
or even no return.
11 See Martin v Polyplas Manufacturers Ltd
[1969] NZLR 1046 at 1050. Some other countries have incorporated this
into their legislation – see for example s102(b) of the US Copyright
Act.
12 See for example https://mch.govt.nz/funding-nz-culture
The copyright ecosystem
- Copyright
impacts everyone. The news articles you read, the photos you take, the music you
listen to, the pictures you hang on your
walls, and the television programmes
and online videos you watch, are all protected by copyright. Copyright affects
what we can do
with the creative works we come across, whether it’s for
work or pleasure, used for profit or non- profit, or made by an amateur
or
professional person.
- The
map below sets out how we see the copyright ecosystem.
Figure 1: Copyright ecosystem
Overview of the current copyright regime
- This
section introduces the basic concepts of New Zealand’s copyright law.
Further information on aspects of the regime is included
in the relevant part of
the Issues Paper.
The regime provides a number of exclusive rights
- Copyright
is a set of exclusive rights given automatically to creators of original works
that apply for a limited period of time.13 These exclusive rights
effectively give the copyright owner control over:
- whether copies
or adaptations of the work can be made
- whether and how
copies or adaptations of the work are made public for the first time, whether
this be issuing copies to the public,
performing, playing or showing the work in
public, broadcasting it or making it available online.
- On
creation of a copyright work, the exclusive rights are generally owned by the
author (typically the person who created the work).
For sound recordings, films
and communication works14 the producer is the
author.15
- Sometimes
copyright is not given to the author but rather to the person who commissioned
the work or employed the author:
- If photographs,
computer programs, paintings, sculptures, films or sound recordings are
commissioned, copyright is given to the commissioner.
This is called the
‘commissioning rule’. For example, if you commission a photographer
to take photos of your family,
you own the copyright in the photos.
- For literary,
dramatic, musical or artistic works that are created in the course of
employment, copyright is given to the author’s
employer. For example, if
you write text for your employer’s publication in the course of your
employment, your employer owns
the copyright in the
text.
- These
are the default rules for determining the first owner of copyright and they can
be changed by contract or assigned/transferred
at a later
date.
- Copyright
can also be jointly owned, for example if there is more than one author or
commissioner or if it is transferred to more
than one
person.
The copyright regime grants rights additional to the exclusive
rights
- In
addition to the exclusive rights mentioned above, the Copyright Act also:
- enables
copyright owners to prevent people from doing other things in certain
circumstances (like importing their works into New Zealand,
possessing or
dealing with an infringing copy of a copyright work or enabling other people to
do one of the
13 See paragraphs 48 and 177
for more detail on the exclusive rights.
14 A radio or television broadcast is an example of a
communication work.
15 The producer is the person who makes the arrangements necessary
for the recording of a sound recording like a recorded song, the making
of a
film (eg the film producer) or the communication of a work (eg the
broadcaster).
exclusive rights listed above)16
- provides authors
of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic copyright works, and directors of
films, with ‘moral rights’ (like the right to identified as
the author and the right to object to derogatory treatment of their copyright
works)17
- grants
performers’ rights that enable performers to consent to (or
prevent) the recording or live broadcasting of their
performances18
- enables
copyright owners to prevent people from providing devices, services or
information that help other people get around technological protection
measures they have used to prevent people infringing copyright in their
works19
- prohibits the
interference with copyright management information attached to, or embodied in,
copies of works.20
A number of copyright works can sit within a creative work
- Sometimes
a creative work may comprise a number of copyright works within it, each with a
different copyright owner. For example,
a song that is broadcast by a radio
station could involve up to four different copyright owners:
- the songwriter
who wrote the lyrics for the song would have copyright in those lyrics as a
literary work
- the composer who
composed the music for the song would have copyright in that musical work
- the producer who
recorded the song would have copyright in that sound recording
- the radio
station who broadcast the song would have copyright in that broadcast as a
communication work.
- Paragraphs
115 to 118 explain this in more
detail.
Copyright is subject to exceptions and limitations
- The
Copyright Act sets out various exceptions to copyright owners’
exclusive rights. For example, there are:
- exceptions for
certain uses: for example, the fair dealing exceptions for the
purposes of criticism, review, news reporting or private study
- exceptions for
certain users: for example, exceptions for educational
establishments, libraries and archives
- exceptions
relating to certain works: for example, exceptions for
industrially applied artistic works or exceptions for communication works like
time-shifting.
16 See paragraphs 180 to 181
for a discussion of secondary infringement of copyright.
17 See paragraphs 226to 235 for a discussion of moral rights.
18 See paragraphs 236 to 243 for a discussion of performers’
rights.
19 See from paragraph 244
for a discussion of technological protection measures.
20 Copyright management information is sometimes referred to as
‘rights management information’. It identifies the work,
its author
or copyright owner and can identify any terms and conditions that use of the
work may be subject to.
- The
Copyright Act also includes a number of limitations on the liability of
persons for infringing copyright under certain circumstances. For example, there
are limitations providing that:
- internet service
providers are not liable for copyright infringements that occur over their
networks or platforms by their subscribers
under certain
circumstances21
- employees of the
Crown who infringe copyright with the authority of the Crown are not personally
liable – liability lies instead
with the
Crown.
The exclusive rights can be transferred or licensed
- Copyright
owners can sell or transfer one or more of their exclusive rights to another
person.22 They can also retain the rights but authorise another
person to do one of the things covered by the exclusive rights (for example,
to
copy or distribute the work). The authorisation, along with any conditions of
use, is a copyright licence.
- Arranging
licences to use a copyright work can be complex. When a work is made up of
multiple underlying copyright works (like the
radio station broadcast example
above) it can involve multiple copyright owners. A copyright owner can license
different rights to
different licensees. For example, the copyright owner of a
manuscript could:
- license the
rights to make copies and distribute them (in the form of a book) to a
publishing company
- license the
right to make an adaptation (a film from the manuscript) to a movie
producer.
Collective management organisations play an important role
licensing copyright works
- Collective
management organisations (copyright collecting societies) are bodies whose
members are copyright owners. They help copyright
owners to license their works
and users to navigate the complexities of licensing copyright works by providing
copyright licensing
schemes. The licensing income collected by these bodies is
distributed amongst their members.
The Copyright Tribunal can address certain disputes
- The
Copyright Tribunal can hear and decide disputes about copyright licensing
schemes provided by collective management organisations.
It also can hear claims
and award damages arising from the use of peer-to-peer file sharing technologies
over the internet to infringe
copyright.
21 See from paragraph 414 for further details.
22 See paragraphs 48 and 177 for more detail on the exclusive
rights.
Some people are proactively sharing their copyright works for re-use
- Some
copyright owners are choosing to make their works freely available to others to
copy and use through, for example, Creative Commons and Free and Open
Source Software licensing schemes.
Copyright can be enforced by taking legal action
- Copyright
is a property right. It is up to the owners to decide (subject to the
exceptions) how and when others may use their works,
being their property.
Unauthorised use is an infringement of copyright and the owner may take legal
action to stop the use and seek
compensation for any damage suffered as a result
of the unauthorised use.
- There
are also criminal offences and penalties for knowingly infringing copyright,
especially when undertaken in the course of business,
meaning a prosecution may
be brought by the Crown.
Industrial designs can qualify for dual protection under the
Copyright Act and the Designs Act
- Original
artistic works that are industrially applied (industrial designs) are given 16
years protection under the Copyright Act.
Industrial designs can also be
registered under the Designs Act 1953. Registered designs receive up to 15 years
copyright protection.
Our international obligations
- New
Zealand is a party to several international agreements related to copyright.
These agreements emerged to guarantee a minimum level
of copyright protection in
the member countries as works move across national boundaries. They include:
- the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne
Convention)23
- Universal
Copyright Convention24
- the TRIPS
Agreement (which incorporates obligations under the 1971 Act of the Berne
Convention).25
- Some
of New Zealand’s free trade agreements also contain obligations on how
copyright must be protected. See for example the
Intellectual Property Chapter
of the CPTPP.26 CPTPP in turn creates obligations to join other
intellectual property agreements, including the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO
Performers
and Phonograms Treaty.
23 New Zealand is a Party to the Rome Act (1928) of
the Berne Convention.
24 The text of the Universal Copyright Convention can be found
here:
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15241&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
25 The TRIPS Agreement requires New Zealand to comply with
Articles 1 – 21 of the Paris (1971) Act of the Berne Convention.
26 https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/Trans-Pacific-Partnership/Text/18.-Intellectual-Property-Chapter.pdf
- These
international obligations collectively form the boundaries our copyright laws
must fit within. Any changes we make must be consistent
with these
obligations.
- The
most important obligations under these agreements include:
- not requiring
copyright owners to register their works to benefit from copyright
protection
- ensuring certain
copyright laws are applied on a national treatment basis
- a requirement to
protect copyright for specified minimum periods of time
- a requirement to
protect certain types of works by copyright
- ensuring that
any exceptions to, or limitations on, copyright protection comply with a
framework (the three-step test).
- We
explain each of these in more detail below.
No requirement for registration
- The
Berne Convention requires that copyright be granted automatically without a
requirement for formalities like
registration.27
National treatment
- Broadly,
this obligation means that a work originating in another country that is party
to the agreement must be given the same protection
as if the work originated in
New Zealand (and vice versa).28 We cannot discriminate against
persons from other countries or give preferential treatment to New Zealanders.
This encourages overseas
copyright owners to make copies of their works
available in New Zealand, knowing the works will be protected. Similarly, all
other
parties to the TRIPS Agreement or the Berne Convention must provide the
same protection to New Zealanders as they provide to their
own citizens. The
effect of this provision – together with the requirement for automatic
protection described above –
is that copyright works created by New
Zealanders are protected by copyright in all other countries party to the TRIPS
Agreement
or the Berne Convention.29
Copyright term
- The
Berne Convention requires a minimum copyright term of the life of the author
plus 50 years for most works except films and sound
recordings. For films, the
minimum term of protection is 50 years from the date the film was made available
to the public.30
27 See article 5(2) Berne Convention. Formalities
other than registration could include a requirement to display a copyright
notice (©)
on a work or to deposit a copy of a work with a government
agency.
28 Article 5(1) Berne Convention, Article 3 TRIPS Agreement.
29 National treatment is also required by some of New
Zealand’s Free Trade Agreements, either explicitly, or by reference to the
TRIPS Agreement. It is also required by the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the WIPO
Performances and Phonograms Treaty.
30 Articles (7)(1) and (2), Berne Convention.
- The
TRIPS Agreement additionally requires that the minimum term of protection for
performances and sound recordings is 50 years from
the date the recording was
made or the performance took place.31
Works that must be protected
- The
Berne Convention sets out the types of works that must be
protected32. These include:
- literary works
books, pamphlets or other written works
- artistic works
including photographic works, and architectural works
- dramatic works
like a script for a film or a play
- musical works,
such as a musical score
- films.
- The
TRIPS Agreement requires additional works to be protected,
including:33
- computer
programs
- compilations of
data
- sound
recordings
- performances
- broadcasts.
Exceptions and limitations – the Berne ‘three-step
test’
- The
Berne Convention sets out a ‘three-step’ test for providing
exceptions to the author’s exclusive right to reproduce
or copy a work. It
requires that exceptions and limitations can only be permitted:
- in certain
special cases
- that do not
conflict with a normal exploitation of the work
- and that do not
unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the
author.34
- The
TRIPS Agreement extends the Berne Convention three-step test to all of the
author’s exclusive rights provided for in the
Berne Convention and the
TRIPS Agreement.35
Recent developments
- More
recent developments have occurred through multilateral trade agreements,
including CPTPP.
- CPTPP
requires New Zealand to make a number of changes to the Copyright Act including
providing new property and moral rights to performers
in relation to their live
performance
31 Article 14(5) TRIPS Agreement.
32 Article 2 Berne Convention.
33 Article 14 TRIPS Agreement.
34 Article 9(2) Berne Convention.
35 Article 13 TRIPS Agreement.
and sound recordings made from their performances. CPTPP also requires New
Zealand to join the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO
Performances and
Phonograms Treaty.36
These treaties, sometimes called the WIPO Internet Treaties, were developed in
the 1990s as a response to technological developments
like the internet and the
widespread availability of computers.
The Marrakesh Treaty
- In
June 2017, the government agreed to accede to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate
Access to Published works for Persons Who are
Blind, Visually Impaired, or
Otherwise Print Disabled (the Marrakesh Treaty)37. The
Marrakesh Treaty requires member states to provide a copyright exception that
allows ‘authorised entities’ to make
and distribute copies of
copyright works that are accessible to persons with a print
disability.
- A
Bill amending the Copyright Act to allow New Zealand to accede to the Marrakesh
Treaty was introduced to Parliament and read a first
time in November this year
(following public consultation on an exposure
draft).38
36 Information about the WIPO Copyright Treaty and
the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty can be found at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/
37 Information about the Marrakesh Treaty can be found at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/
38 Information about the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty
Implementation) Amendment Bill can be found at https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_80988/copyright-
marrakesh-treaty-implementation-amendment-bill
Part 3 – Objectives
Introduction
- Having
clear and agreed objectives for our copyright regime is important. They provide
a clear framework and shared understanding
of the purpose of the regime. They
also provide a basis for monitoring and assessing the performance of the
regime.
- Unlike
many modern statutes, the Copyright Act does not have a meaningful purpose
statement nor any stated objectives. However, there
are well understood
principles underpinning copyright, developed through the common law,
international law and domestic policy development.
What does copyright seek to achieve?
- In
our view the copyright regime should seek to balance the following outcomes:
- creation of
original works
- use, improvement
and adaptation of works created by others
- dissemination
and access to knowledge and creative works.
Figure 2: Model of outcomes
- In
our view optimal settings for each would result in a more effective and
efficient system and increase the quality and quantity
of copyright works
overall.
Proposed objectives
- The
proposed objectives describe what we think copyright should seek to achieve in
the New Zealand context:
Proposed Objectives
1. Provide incentives for the creation and dissemination of works, where
copyright is the most efficient mechanism to do so
|
2. Permit reasonable access to works for use, adaption and consumption,
where exceptions to exclusive rights are likely to have net
benefits for New
Zealand
|
3. Ensure that the copyright system is effective and efficient, including
providing clarity and certainty, facilitating competitive
markets, minimising
transaction costs, and maintaining integrity and respect for the law
|
4. Meet New Zealand’s international obligations
|
5. Ensure that the copyright system is consistent with the Crown’s
obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi
|
- These
objectives are the same as those that appeared in the review’s terms of
reference, with the addition of the objective
on the Treaty of
Waitangi.
- We
propose to use these objectives in the review to help us assess whether changes
are required. We want to hear your views on whether
these objectives are the
right ones for New Zealand’s copyright regime. Some copyright owners, for
example, have told us they
disagree with the above objectives. They consider that the purpose of copyright
is to protect creation and creators per se, as well as their business
models and investment.
- We
would also be interested in whether there are other objectives the regime should
seek to achieve and why. Adaptability or resilience
of the Copyright Act in the
face of technological developments (eg through more technologically-neutral
provisions) is an example
of something we have heard is important to people and
potentially deserves more emphasis in the objectives. Some may question whether
the Copyright Act can be made more flexible without decreasing certainty for
people who create and interact with copyright works,
particularly given that we
get very little guidance from the courts on how to interpret copyright law
(compared with other countries).
1
|
Are the above objectives the right ones for New Zealand’s copyright
regime? How well do you think the copyright system is achieving
these
objectives?
|
2
|
Are there other objectives that we should be aiming to achieve? For
example, do you think adaptability or resilience to future technological
change
should be included as an objective and, if so, do you think that would be
achievable without reducing certainty and clarity?
|
3
|
Should sub-objectives or different objectives for any parts of the Act be
considered (eg for moral rights or performers’ rights)?
Please be specific
in your answer.
|
4
|
What weighting (if any) should be given to each objective?
|
Part 4 – Rights
Introduction
- The
Copyright Act provides a series of rights to creators to encourage people to
invest time, effort and resources to create and disseminate
creative works. The
rights give creators control over the copying and distribution of their works to
increase their ability to earn
revenue from the works.
- This
Part discusses the requirements that need to be met for a work to be protected
by copyright and the rights given to copyright
owners. It also discusses some
other rights the Copyright Act provides.
- The
Copyright Act provides five main types of rights:
- copyright (eg
the right to prevent others from copying or distributing works)
- moral rights (eg
the right to object to derogatory treatment of works)
- performers’
rights (eg the right to prevent others from recording or distributing a
performance)
- rights relating
to the maintenance of technological protection measures (eg the right to
restrict others from circumventing digital
‘locks’ like copy-control
measures)
- rights relating
to the protection of copyright management information.
- This
Part discusses:
- Section 1
– What does copyright protect and who gets the rights?
- Protected
works
- Ownership
- Section 2
– What actions does copyright reserve for copyright owners?
- Exclusive
rights and primary infringement
- Secondary
infringement
- Authorisation
as infringement
- Exhaustion
of rights and parallel importation
- Section 3
– Specific issues with the current rights
- Communication
to the public and communication works
- How
should digital content be treated?
- Section 4
– Moral rights, performers’ rights and technological protection
measures
- Moral
rights
- performers’
rights
- rights
relating to technological protection measures.
- The
exceptions to these rights are discussed in Part 5.
Section 1 – What does copyright protect and who gets the
rights?
Protected
works
- Copyright
is a property right that exists in original ‘works’ of the following
types:39
Table 3: Works that are eligible for protection
Work
|
Includes
|
Examples40
|
Literary
|
Any written, spoken or sung work (that is not a dramatic or musical work).
Compilations of data and
computer programs explicitly included.
|
Novel, blog, lyrics, computer code.
|
Dramatic
|
Work of dance or mime and scenario or script for a
film.
|
Film script.
|
Musical
|
Any work of music excluding any words or actions.
|
Musical score.
|
Artistic
|
Any work of artistic craftsmanship.
|
Photographs, buildings,
sculptures, paintings, plans.
|
Sound recording
|
Any reproducible recording of sounds or the sound recording of the whole or
part of any literary,
dramatic or musical work.
|
Recorded song, audio sound in a movie.
|
Film
|
Any recording from which a moving image can be
produced.
|
Images in a movie, video
recording on a smartphone.
|
Communication work
|
Any transmission of sounds, visual images or other information to the
public.
|
Radio broadcast, internet television programme delivered
over broadband.
|
Typographical arrangements
|
Of published editions
|
The layout of a novel.
|
- Literary,
dramatic and musical works are eligible for copyright protection if they are
recorded, in writing or otherwise. An improvised
song or speech will not be
protected by copyright unless it is written down or an audio recording is made
of it.
- Copyright
arises automatically when an original work41 is created regardless of
whether the work’s creator is interested in copyright protection. There is
no requirement to register
copyright, or pay a fee, or take any other action to
obtain copyright protection. This means that a huge array of everyday creations,
including an email sent to a colleague, a blog, a
child’s painting, or a snapshot of a friend can all qualify for copyright
protection.
- As
shown in Table 3, copyright protects different types of ‘works’.
Copyright works are often a compilation of different
parts. Under the Copyright
Act, copyright in creative works attaches to different ‘works’ that
make up the whole work.
Each copyright work may have a different
author.42 For example, recorded music generally
involves:
39 Section 14 sets out the categories of original
works, each of which is defined in section 2.
40 Further examples of the categories of works and what they
include are provided in the Creative Sector Study
41 See the discussion on ‘Originality’ below.
42 See the discussion under “Ownership” below.
a ‘literary work’ (the lyrics written by the songwriter)
- a ‘musical
work’ (the musical score written by the composer)43
- a ‘sound
recording’ (the recording of the song by a recording
studio).
- Similarly,
audio-visual works (movies, documentaries or series etc.) are made up of
different copyright works that can include, for
example, literary works (the lyrics of the sound track), musical works (the
musical score of the sound track), dramatic work (the
script), artistic works
(designs, photographs, etc.), a sound recording (the accompanying audio sound
track) and a film (the series
of visual images).
- We
have heard that the name of the category of work can sometimes cause confusion.
For example, a ‘film’ in the Copyright
Act encompasses any recording
from which a moving image can be produced, like a smartphone video. It is
therefore wider than the
kinds of movies which might traditionally be referred
to as a ‘film’. The concept is also narrower than the ordinary
meaning because the sound elements of an audio/visual work are protected
separately as a ‘sound recording’.
43 For purpose of this discussion document we
distinguish songwriters from composers to reflect the different copyright works
even though
they may be the same person.
- The
types of works protected largely reflect requirements in international treaties.
There are however some flexibilities (eg Australia
protects the moving image
and associated sounds
together as a ‘cinematograph film’).
5
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way the Copyright Act
categorises works?
|
Originality
- As
noted above, if a work fits into one of the protected categories, it must be
‘original’ to receive copyright protection.
In New Zealand there is
no quality or novelty threshold for copyright protection. To be
‘original’ a work must not be
a copy of another work and must not
infringe copyright in any other work. The relevant international treaty, the
Berne Convention, does not define ‘original’ or set a
standard for works to qualify for protection.
- All
works are required to be ‘original’ to receive copyright protection
in New Zealand. In many other countries (including
the United Kingdom, Australia
and Canada) there is no originality requirement for sound recordings, films or
typographical arrangements.
- New
Zealand courts have tended to follow United Kingdom precedent44 when
interpreting the threshold for originality. They have asked whether creating the
work involved sufficient skill, judgement and
labour.45 In some
countries, judges have interpreted ‘original’ to require something
extra — for example, in the United States,
there must be a level of
‘creative
spark’ in order to receive copyright protection.
- In
New Zealand, a telephone directory has been found to qualify as an original work
and receive copyright protection.46 Similar cases relating to
telephone directories in the United States47 and
Australia48 have come to the opposite conclusion on the basis that
the
directories did not satisfy a ‘minimal level of creativity’ or
exhibit ‘independent intellectual effort’
on the part of the author.
This may mean that some works which might not receive copyright protection in
other countries could be
protected by copyright in New Zealand.
- Some
people argue that the standard of originality applied in New Zealand is too low,
and that some works qualify for copyright where
protection is not justified. It
may surprise many of us to think of the seemingly banal things, such as
work-related emails, that
the Copyright Act theoretically protects, especially
when we find ourselves routinely infringing those protections (eg by forwarding
the email). In theory at least, protection comes at a cost to the rest of
society (an ‘opportunity cost’). So if our
copyright regime gives
people rights there is no public interest in them having (or even rights the
person does not actually want
or realise they have), we should try to understand
the consequences of this and consider what, if anything, can be done to address
it within the constraints of the Berne Convention.
44 Ladbroke (Football) v William Hill (Football)
Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273(HL)
45 Cases in New Zealand that have applied this test include NZ
Supreme Court in Henkel KGAA v Holdfast New Zealand Ltd [2005] NZSC 39; [2006] 1 NZLR 577
(SC) and Bonz Group (Pty) Ltd v Cooke [1994] NZHC 1004; [1994] 3 NZLR 216, (1994) 6 TCLR
23.
46 YPG IP Ltd v Yellowbook.com.au Pty Ltd
CIV-2007-404-002839 May 31, 2010, Cooper J.
47 Feist Publications Inc v Rural Telephone Services Co Inc
[1991] USSC 50; 499 US 340 (1991).
48 Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty
Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149.
6
|
Is it clear what ‘skill, judgement and labour’ means as a test
as to whether a work is protected by copyright? Does this
test make copyright
protection apply too widely? If it does, what are the implications, and what
changes should be considered?
|
Idea vs expression
- As
described in paragraph 58 above, copyright
protection extends to the expression of an idea but does not protect the idea
itself.49
- In
some cases, the distinction between the expression of the idea and the idea
itself may not be clear-cut. An example of this is
TV show formats, particularly
game shows or quiz shows. Such shows are usually performed on an ‘ad
lib’ basis, with any
script only setting out the framework or idea behind
the show. While each individual episode might be protected by copyright, the
idea behind it is not necessarily protectable.50
Data
- The
concept of ‘data’ raises similar issues. The role of copyright in
the protection of data, databases and compilations
is not
straightforward.
- The
word ‘data’ can be used to refer to many different kinds of
information. In some cases,
‘data’ can refer to short pieces of factual information (eg
customer/category names, numeric figures etc) (basic data). In other
cases, ‘data’ can refer to large pieces of copyright protected work
(eg written content, film etc).
- In
New Zealand, ‘compilations’ are protected as literary works under
the Copyright Act.51 The definition of a compilation includes
‘a compilation of data’. As with all works,
the
compilation must be ‘original’ and pass the ‘skill, effort and
judgement’ test.
- We
understand that data contained in databases will often be basic data, so the
individual items of data would not typically be protected
by
copyright.52 Questions have been raised about the extent to which the
protection of compilations/databases may be locking up and preventing access
to
the underlying data itself.
- The
‘skill, effort and judgement, test applied in New Zealand could mean that
some basic data is protected by copyright. For
example, the New Zealand courts
have ruled that a telephone directory53 involved sufficient skill,
effort and judgement to be protected by copyright. This may have the effect of
limiting access to the
information in the directory.
- Data
is becoming more important for identifying, and acting on, commercial
opportunities.
49 See Martin v Polyplas Manufacturers Ltd
[1969] NZLR 1046 at 1050. Some other countries have incorporated this
into their legislation – see for example s102(b) of the US Copyright
Act.
50 The New Zealand courts have held that such TV show formats are
not dramatic works for the purposes of
the Copyright Act – see Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New
Zealand [1988] NZLR 490.
51 This gives effect to our obligations under Article 2(5) of the
Berne Convention, which provides that collections of literary and artistic
works
are protected as a compilation (eg an encyclopaedia) if the selection
and arrangement of their contents constitute ‘intellectual
creations’. TRIPS, Article 10.2 clarifies that this protection
extends to
databases and other compilations of data.
52 Factual information in short form like customer names, numeric
figures and category names is unlikely to
receive copyright protection.
53 See paragraph 122
above.
7
|
Are there any problems with (or benefits arising from) the treatment of
data and compilations in the Copyright Act? What changes (if
any) should be
considered?
|
Data mining
- Data
can be collected and used on a large scale with the assistance of algorithms and
the
web (commonly referred to as ‘data mining’). Depending on the kind
of data mining, a lot of the ‘data’ collected
can be
copyright-protected content. We understand that mining copyright-protected data
(ie copyright data) is heavily relied on for
the development of emerging
technologies like artificial intelligence.
- In
this issues paper, we discuss the issue of data mining in paragraphs 296 to 306, where we consider artificial
intelligence and exceptions that might apply respectively.
Ownership of copyright
- There
are different default ownership rules for different types of works. The rules
are not always well understood. Reviewing the
Copyright Act gives us an
opportunity to consider whether these rules are appropriate.
Who is the first owner of copyright?
- The
‘default’ rule is that the exclusive rights provided by copyright,
like the right to copy a work or play it in public,
are provided to
authors54. If there is more than one author of a work,55
the copyright is held jointly. In that case somebody wanting to do any of the
acts restricted by copyright56 will need the permission of all of the
authors.
- There
are, however, exceptions to this rule. Sometimes the first owner of copyright is
the person who commissioned the work or the
author’s
employer.
Table 4: Default rules relating to authorship and ownership
Rules relating to authorship and ownership (which can be
varied by contract)
|
|
Literary work
|
Dramatic work
|
Musical work
|
Artistic work
|
Sound recording
|
Film
|
Communication work
|
Typographical arrangement
|
Author
|
The person who created the work
(in the case of computer-generated works, the creator is the
person who made the arrangements for the creation of the work)
|
The person who made the arrangements for the making of the
sound recording or film (usually the producer)
|
The person responsible for the contents of the communication
work who transmits it or makes it available57
|
The publisher
|
First owner of copyright
|
The author,58 unless the work was made in the
course of employment
|
The author, unless the work was commissioned/made in the
course of employment
|
The author, unless the work was commissioned
|
The author
|
54 “Author” in relation to a copyright
work is defined in section 5 of the Act.
55 This is when two or more people have contributed to the
creation of a work and their contribution is not distinct from the contribution
of the other authors.
56 The acts restricted by copyright are set out in paragraph 177.
57 The person providing the underlying content may also be a joint
author of a communication work (see section 3(1)(b)) of the Copyright
Act.
58 Except for computer programs, which are a kind of literary work
to which the commissioning rule applies.
The ‘commissioning rule’
- For
certain kinds of works, the person who commissions and pays for the creation of
that work is deemed to be the first owner. This
is often referred to as the
‘commissioning rule’.
- The
commissioning rule provides that the person who commissions and pays for (or
agrees to pay for) a work is the first owner (subject
to any agreement to the
contrary) in respect of the following kinds of works: photographs, computer
programs, paintings, drawings,
diagrams, maps, charts, plans, engravings,
models, sculptures, films or sound recordings.
- Literary,
dramatic and musical works (except for computer programs) are not subject to the
commissioning rule. Certain artistic works
are also excluded from the
commissioning rule, including a collage, a work of architecture, an etching and
a print.
- During
the Creative Sector Study,59 we heard strong and divergent views
about the commissioning rule – particularly from photographers and, in
contrast, those
that commission the services of photographers. Photographers
have told us that the default rules unfair and negatively impact their
ability
to have a viable business.
- Photographers
claim that the commissioning rule places them at a disadvantage in negotiations
with clients. They say that clients
tell them that they will not be hired unless
they agree to assign their copyright to the client and use the commissioning
rule to
justify this. Some photographers noted that their work was often
integral to the final creative work and felt that they were not
compensated
fairly for commercial works.
- The
UK, Canada, Australia60 and the US have all introduced changes so
that a person who commissions a work is no longer the first owner of
copyright.61
Works made in the course of employment
- Section
2 of the Act defines ‘employment’ as relating to a person employed
under a contract of service or a contract of
apprenticeship. This means that if
an employee creates a copyright work (such as this Issues Paper) in the course
of their normal
duties, copyright in the work is owned by the employer, not the
employee. This default position can be varied by agreement between
the employee
and the employer.
Some creators do not own copyright in their works
- Some
categories of people who play a major role in creation are not explicitly
identified as authors. For example, because the author
of a film is the person
who makes the arrangements necessary for the making of the film (typically the
film producer), film directors
do not generally hold copyright in the film and
sound recordings they make when they make a movie. Film directors do, however,
receive
moral rights, which we discuss further from paragraph 226.
59 The Creative Sector Study is mentioned in more
detail in paragraphs 14 to 16.
60 However, section 35(5) of the Australian Copyright Act 1968
provides that a person who commissions the taking of a photograph for a
private or domestic purpose will be the first owner of copyright
in the
photograph.
61 However, they all treat the author of a film or sound recording
as the person who made the arrangements. In some cases, that person
may
effectively be the commissioner.
- As
outlined above, the author of a film is the person who makes the arrangements
necessary for the making of the film. This is commonly
the film producer. The
Act does not explicitly include film directors in the definition of author.
- Some
other countries have different default ownership rules for films. For example,
in Australia, unless a film is commissioned, the
first owner includes the
director. In the EU, the principal director of a film is treated as the author,
or one of the authors (alongside
the producer), of a film. Some EU countries
also allocate authorship of films to others involved in the process of
filming.62
- Some
film directors have told us that not being recognised as an author (and
therefore not qualifying for copyright in films) lowers
their bargaining power
with producers. We have heard that this reduces their income and therefore the
quality and quantity of films
made in New Zealand.
- If
a film directed by a New Zealand director is shown overseas, the director is
entitled to a share of the royalties from those showings.
However, overseas
collective management organisations will not collect these royalties on behalf
of New Zealand directors. This is
because New Zealand collective management
organisations cannot collect royalties on behalf of overseas film directors for
showings
of their films in New Zealand, as we do not recognise directors as
authors.
8
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the way the default rules for
copyright ownership work? What changes (if any) should we consider?
|
Artificial intelligence and copyright
- Artificial
intelligence and algorithms can write news and novels, generate artworks and
computer programs, and write and perform music.
Artificial intelligence can also
drive innovation processes on its own initiative. This can challenge traditional
copyright notions,
such as ‘copying’, ‘originality’,
‘creator’ and ‘author’.
- The
definition of ‘author’ in the Act requires the author of a work to
be a natural person (ie a human) or a body corporate
(such as a company). In the
case of computer-generated works the author is the person who made the
arrangements necessary for the
creation of the work. This is likely to be a
computer programmer or the programmer’s employer.
- However,
that might not always be the case, particularly with the proliferation of
content created and used by artificial intelligence.
In some cases the creative
contribution made by the computer programmer to a work created by artificial
intelligence may be minimal.
- We
are interested in whether any problems are created by the current rules relating
to computer-generated works, including in light
of new technological
developments such as artificial intelligence.
9
|
What problems (or benefits) are there with the current rules related to
computer- generated works, particularly in light of the development
and
application of new technologies like artificial intelligence to general works?
What changes, if any, should be considered?
|
62 By allocating author’s rights to the
director, the EU also ties the term of protection to the life of the director
rather than
from the point at which the film was first made available to the
public.
Do artists receive a fair share of the revenue generated from
their works?
- Creators
of copyright works are often able to receive an ongoing financial return from
further common means of distributing their
works. For example, a musician may
benefit from ongoing royalty payments based on sales of copies, performances,
radio-play and streaming
of their music.
- Although
copyright owners all receive similar exclusive rights over their works, the
rights impact creators in different ways. For
example, we have heard that visual
artists like painters and sculptors do not earn as much income from licensing
people to copy or
communicate63 their works as other creators like
novelists and musicians. This is likely because copies of works such as
paintings are often produced
in much smaller numbers than is the case for books
or sound recordings. In some cases only one copy of a painting or sculpture may
ever be made.
- One
area where artists can feel that they are not receiving a fair return is where
their works are re-sold by the person who first
purchased the work from the
artist. In some cases the price received by the first or subsequent purchasers
is much higher than the
price paid by the first purchaser to the artist. Some
artists feel that, in such cases, they should receive a share of the profit
made
by the purchaser. Some jurisdictions have dealt with this issue by enacting an
‘artist’s resale right’. This
gives artists the right to claim
a portion of the sale price when their works are re-sold. These jurisdictions
include Australia,
the European Union and some Nordic countries, although
details of these regimes differ. A Bill to introduce an artist resale right
in
New Zealand was introduced into Parliament in 200864 but it was never
enacted.
10
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the rights the Copyright Act gives
visual artists (including painting, drawings, prints, sculptures etc.)? What
changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Reversion of rights
- The
purpose of copyright is to incentivise the creation and dissemination of
creative works. However, we have heard that copyright
can impede dissemination
of older published or recorded copyright works.
- Digital
technologies have opened up new ways for authors to make copies of their works
available to the public. However, authors who
have transferred their copyright
to another party – like a publishing company – cannot always take
advantage of these
opportunities, particularly if the copyright owner is unable
or unwilling to assist.
63 For example, by broadcasting the work or making it
available online.
64 See http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0184/latest/whole.html#DLM1319118
for more information.
- Older
published or recorded works are often no longer available to the public (for
example, out-of-print books). This might be because
it is not commercially
viable for the publisher to republish the work as a new edition –
especially if there is low demand
for it – or for other reasons (eg the
reputation a publisher is seeking to create in the market). When this happens,
the demand
for the work (even if low) goes unsatisfied. We have heard that this
can be particularly problematic for works of historical or cultural
significance. The public cannot easily access such works, for example, other
than by borrowing a copy from a library.
11
|
What are the problems creators and authors, who have previously transferred
their copyright in a work to another person, experience
in seeking to have the
copyright in that work reassigned back to them? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Crown copyright
- The
Crown receives copyright in copyright works produced by people employed (eg this
Issues Paper) or contracted by the Crown65 (eg an economic report or
computer program66 a government department has commissioned).
Copyright in these works is known as ‘Crown copyright’. The term of
protection
is 100 years from the year in which the work was made (or 25 years
for typographical arrangements), even if the copyright is no longer
owned by the
Crown.
- Crown
copyright does not apply (nor does any other copyright) to works produced by the
Crown like governmental and parliamentary materials
like bills, legislation,
court judgments and parliamentary debates.67
- New
Zealand’s copyright term for Crown copyright was extended from 50 years to
100 years in 1994. The extended term of protection
means that no Crown copyright
works will come into the public domain between 1994 and 2044. It also means that
the Issues Paper you
are reading, together with a vast number of other documents
produced by the Crown in 2018, will be protected by copyright for the
next 100
years.68
- There
are differing approaches to the protection of government-produced works
internationally:
- Australia and
Canada provide 50 years protection for Crown copyright works69
- the UK provides
50 years for published works but 125 years for unpublished works
- The US excludes
works made by Federal employees as part of their official duties from receiving
copyright protection altogether.70
65 ‘Crown’ in this context includes
Government Ministers, government departments and offices of Parliament. It does
not include
Crown entities or State owned enterprises.
66 Computer programs are included in the definition of
‘literary work’ under section 2 of the Copyright Act.
67 Section 27 of the Copyright Act.
68 This Issues Paper has been licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (see the second page of this
document).
Please feel free to copy it, redistribute it or adapt it for use as a flip book:
see the terms of the license at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
69 For Australia, this means Crown copyright works have a shorter
period of protection than for other copyright
works (because Australia extended its copyright term to 70 years (calculated
as described above) in 2008).
70 Section 105 of the US Copyright Act 1976.
However, works created by contractors or freelancers working for the Federal
government are protected by copyright.
- Since
the New Zealand Copyright Act was last reviewed, the government has become
increasingly aware of the potential public value
of copyright works produced by
the Crown. The New Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing framework
(NZGOAL)71 now tells government agencies that, unless a restriction
applies,72 they should make their copyright works available for
anyone to freely copy, distribute and adapt, as long as the work is attributed
to the Crown (or to the government agency releasing the work).73 This
suggests more of an ‘opt-in’ model of protection for Crown works, in
contrast to the provisions giving the Crown
copyright in these works by
default.
- The
justification for providing Crown copyright seems more limited than for other
works. The main justification behind providing copyright
protection is to
provide an incentive to create and disseminate works which might otherwise not
have been created or disseminated.
This does not tend to apply to Crown
copyright works. Although there are clearly costs to the Crown in producing
works, including
this Issues Paper, we expect that most Crown copyright works
would be produced even if they were not protected by
copyright.
- We
are aware of some Crown works that may have commercial value (for example,
Standards produced by Standards New Zealand). Crown
copyright in those cases may
provide opportunities to generate a return to taxpayers on the costs of creating
the work (even if commercial
exploitation was not the primary purpose of
creating the work).
- One
other advantage of Crown copyright is that where the Crown has commissioned
the
creation of a work, the Crown’s ownership of copyright means employees and
contractors cannot restrict the Crown’s use
of that work. However, it is
hard to see how a lack of Crown copyright would make this a problem if those
works had no copyright
at all (similar to legislation and court judgments, for
example).
- The
current approach automatically grants Crown copyright and relies on Crown
agencies to opt-out by releasing them for re-use under
a Creative Commons
licence. Given the potential value to others of Crown copyright works (and the
fact they are effectively paid
for by the public), it is possible that the
current approach leads to overprotection of Crown works. Moreover, people may
find it
difficult to distinguish those Crown works they are entitled to use
(through a licence under the NZGOAL framework) and those still
protected by
copyright.
12
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with how Crown copyright operates? What
alternatives (if any) do you think should be considered?
|
Copyright term
- Copyright
terms differ for different types of creative works. These are set out in Table 5
below.
71 The NZGOAL is guidance for government agencies to
follow on the release of copyright works they produce. It can be found at: https://www.ict.govt.nz/guidance-and-resources/open-government/new-zealand-
government-open-access-and-licensing-nzgoal-framework/.
72 Examples of restrictions include where release of the material
would threaten the control over and/or
integrity of Māori or other traditional knowledge or other culturally
sensitive material; or there is a good reason under sections
6, 7 or 9 of the
Official Information Act for withholding release of the work.
73 Creative Commons Attribution licence. Licensing and the
creative commons framework is discussed further
in Part 5 of this paper.
Table 5: Copyright term
Term of Copyright
|
Literary work
|
Dramatic work
|
Musical work
|
Artistic work
|
Sound recording
|
Film
|
Communication work
|
Typographical arrangement
|
Any work under Crown copyright
|
The copyright term expires at the end of the calendar
year that is 50 years after the year on which the author dies.
|
50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work
was made; or 50 years from the date the work was first made available
to the
public by, or with the permission of, the copyright owner, whichever is the
later.
|
50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the
communication work was first made communicated to the public.
|
25 years from the end of the year on which edition
containing the typographical arrangement was first published.
|
100 years from the year in which the work was made (or 25
years for typographical arrangements)
|
Duration of copyright
- We
consider that the current terms of protection for copyright are more than
adequate to incentivise creation and dissemination of
copyright
works.74 Minimum terms of protection are set by international
agreements (generally 50 years from the date of making available to the public,
or life of the author plus 50 years). The TRIPS Agreement sets a minimum term
for broadcasts of 20 years from the date that the broadcast
was made and a
minimum term of 10 years for industrial designs.
- We
do not consider it necessary to look at the general term of copyright in this
review given the extensive public debate that has
already occurred and the body
of evidence and economic analysis we have studied on the subject. For the
reasons given to the Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill,75 we do
not consider that extending the copyright term would bring net benefits to New
Zealand. We would need to become aware of compelling
evidence to the contrary to
have us reconsider this position.
- We
are aware that many people consider that reducing the copyright term would bring
benefits to New Zealand. However, this could not
be done without breaching New
Zealand’s international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and the
Berne Convention.76
- We
do, however, want your views on the copyright term for Crown
copyright,77 broadcasts and certain unpublished
works.
Copyright term for broadcasts
- The
copyright term for broadcasts (referred to as ‘communication works’
in the Copyright Act) is 50 years from the date
that the communication work was
first communicated to the
74 The term of copyright is explained in paragraph 50.
75 See paragraphs 32-70 of the Departmental Report for the Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Agreement
Amendment Bill at www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/submissions-and-
advice/document/51SCFDT_ADV_00DBHOH_BILL68998_1_A531537/departmental-report.
76 The Berne Convention requires a term of life of the author plus
50 years, or, for cinematographic works, fifty years after the work
was made
available to the public with the author’s consent. The TRIPS Agreement
requires the same terms, and also requires the copyright term for sound
recordings to be fifty years from the date the recording was
made.
77 Crown copyright is discussed above in paragraph 159.
public. This is longer than the minimum requirement in the TRIPS Agreement,
which is 20 years.
13
|
Are there any problems (or benefits) in providing a copyright term for
communication works that is longer than the minimum required
by New
Zealand’s international obligations?
|
Copyright term for certain unpublished works
- Section
117 of the Copyright Act applies to an unpublished literary, dramatic or musical
work, or an artistic work other than a photograph
and the copyright owner
transfers or bequeaths the work to an institution78 subject to a
condition restricting or regulating the publication of the work for an
indefinite period.
- In
these circumstances, publication of the work in breach of the condition by the
institution owning or possessing the work, or by
any other person is treated as
if it were copyright infringement even if copyright in the work had expired.
This effectively gives
unpublished works of the type referred to in section 117
an indefinite copyright term.
14
|
Are there any problems (or benefits) in providing an indefinite copyright
term for the type of works referred to in section 117?
|
Section 2 – What actions does copyright reserve for
copyright owners?
- This
Section examines the exclusive rights given to owners of copyright works and the
various ways those rights may be infringed.
Enforcement of these rights through
the civil or criminal law is discussed in Part 7.
Exclusive rights and primary infringement
- The
Copyright Act gives copyright owners exclusive rights over their copyright
works. These enable the copyright owner to prevent
other people from doing the
following acts:79
- copying80
the work
- issuing copies
of the work to the public, whether by sale or otherwise81
- performing the
work in public
- playing the work
in public
78 In this context, institution means the Crown, a
local body, a prescribed library or archive, an educational institution or any
other
institution prescribed in the regulations (s117(4)).
79 See section 16 of the Copyright Act which sets out the acts
restricted by copyright.
80 See section 2 of the Act for a definition of
“copying”.
81 See section 9 of the Copyright Act for a definition of
“issue to the public”
- showing the work
in public
- communicating
the work to the public82
- making an
adaptation of the work83
- doing any of the
acts referred to above in relation to an adaptation of the work
- authorising
another person to do any of the acts referred to above.
- If
a person does any of these things (referred to as ‘restricted
acts’) the person will infringe copyright unless they have the
copyright owner’s permission or one of the exceptions of the
Copyright Act
set out in Part 3 apply84. This is called ‘primary
infringement’.
- The
doing of a restricted act is infringement even if done indirectly. For example,
making copies of a product may infringe copyright
in the drawings used in the
manufacture of the product, even if the infringer had not seen those
drawings.85
15
|
Do you think there are any problems with (or benefits arising from) the
exclusive rights or how they are expressed? What changes (if
any) should be
considered?
|
Secondary infringement
- In
contrast with primary infringement, a person can infringe copyright even if they
do not do one of the restricted acts. This is
called ‘secondary
infringement’ and seeks to prevent people from facilitating primary
infringement or dealing with infringing copies or infringing
performances.86 Acts that constitute secondary infringement
include:87
- importing an
infringing copy other than for private and domestic use (eg importing and
selling pirated DVDs)
- possessing,
selling, hiring or distributing an infringing copy in the course of business (eg
making infringing copies of a DVD and
selling them)
- making,
importing or dealing with in the course of business an object specifically
designed or adapted to make infringing copies
- permitting a
place of public entertainment to be used for an infringing performance
- supplying or
permitting an apparatus to be used to perform, play or show a work in public in
a way that infringes copyright, or supplying
a copy of the sound recording or
film played or shown using the apparatus.
- Secondary
copyright infringement generally requires that the person knows, or has reason
to believe, that the copies or performances
involved are infringing copies or
performances.
16
|
Are there any problems (or benefits) with the secondary liability
provisions? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
82 See section 2 of the Copyright Act for a
definition of “communicate”.
83 See section 2 of the Copyright Act for a definition of
“adaptation”.
84 See Part 5 of this paper for a discussion of the
exceptions.
85 See, for example, Wham-O MFG Co v Lincoln Industries
[1984] 1 NZLR 641.
86 A object is an infringing copy if its making constituted
copyright infringement.
87 See section 35 to 39 of the Copyright Act.
Authorisation as infringement
- One
of the exclusive rights of copyright owners is the right to authorise other
people to do one of the restricted acts.88 If a person A authorises
another person B to do one of the
restricted acts, and A does not have the copyright owner’s permission, A
is infringing copyright (and B will be too if B actually
does the restricted
act).
- The
Copyright Act does not define what constitutes authorisation – the issue
has largely been left to the courts. The few relevant
court decisions have
mostly dealt with situations where businesses provide their customers with the
means89 to make copies of copyright works in circumstances where the
businesses would have known that some of their customers would use the
means to
make infringing copies. In these cases copyright owners argued that the
defendants had ‘authorised’ the making
of infringing
copies.
- While
there have been some New Zealand court decisions relating to authorisation in
the copyright context, they have involved the
making of physical copies of works
protected by copyright. There have been no cases on what might constitute
authorisation in the
digital environment. This may lead to uncertainty as to
which activities constitute ‘authorisation’ and therefore require
the copyright owner’s permission.
- An
example where this has become an issue is with the providing of links to
infringing content on the internet.
Linking to infringing content
- One
example of linking to infringing content is where a website (W) provides links
to infringing content on other websites but website
W does not host the
infringing content itself. When people who visit website W are directed to the
other websites they can then download
the infringing content there. When they
download the content they will be making infringing copies on their devices and
so will be
infringing copyright.
- Website
W does not host any content itself so does not make or distribute infringing
copies. In this case it is unclear whether website
W is
’authorising’ others to do a restricted act by providing the
links.
- Internet
search engines can also provide links to infringing content. The algorithms that
search engines use often do not distinguish
been infringing and non-infringing
content hosted on websites.
- There
appear to be no New Zealand cases on linking, but the Federal Court of Australia
has held that providing links to infringing
material can constitute
‘authorisation’.90
88 See section 16(1)(f) of the Copyright Act.
89 One case involved the supply of photocopiers (University of
New South Wales v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26; (1974-1975) 133 CLR 1); the other
involved cassette tape decks that allowed cassettes to be copied (CBS Songs v
Amstrad
Consumer Electronics Plc [1988] 1 AC 103 (HL). In both of these cases,
it was found that there was no authorisation, as the alleged authorisers did not
have any direct control
over how the copying means would be used. Merely making
available the means for making copies (or performing any of the other restricted
acts)
without more, is not ‘authorisation’.
90 See Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Cooper [2005]
FCS 972.
- One
problem in relation to websites that link to infringing material may be that
often the websites are hosted outside of New Zealand.
Infringing copyright in
New Zealand requires infringing acts like authorisation to take place in New
Zealand.91 Overseas-hosted websites that link to infringing content
do not therefore infringe the copyright owner’s
authorisation
right in New Zealand. This contrasts with the UK, where the
‘authorisation’ does not have to happen in the UK. The UK
Court of
Appeal has ruled that their authorisation right covers overseas authorisation,
as long as the subsequent infringing act
happened in the UK.
- Websites
linking to infringing material can be hosted by ISPs and other online platform
providers. This raises a question as to what
extent they might be considered to
be authorising others to do a restricted act by hosting such
websites.92
17
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way authorisation liability
currently operates? What changes (if any) do you think
should be
considered?
|
Exhaustion of rights and parallel importing
- One
of the exclusive rights that copyright owners have is the right to issue their
works to the public. However, once copies of a
work have been issued to the
public in New Zealand by or with the permission of the copyright owner, this
right is ‘exhausted’.
This means, for example, if a person buys a
book, or a CD, or DVD, that person does not need the copyright owner’s
permission
to on-sell it.
- This
‘exhaustion’ of the right to issue copies of a work to the public
also applies where the copies are placed on the
market in another country with
the explicit or implicit permission of the copyright owner.93 These
copies can be imported into New Zealand and issued to the public without
infringing copyright.94 These imported copies are commonly referred
to as
‘parallel imports’.
- New
Zealand has a longstanding policy of allowing parallel imports. The Government
has commissioned a number of studies on the impact
of the parallel importing
policy on the economy. In 2012, the former Ministry of Economic Development
commissioned Deloitte Access
Economics to analyse the costs and benefits of
allowing parallel imports of copyright works in New Zealand. The report updated
previous
studies commissioned by the Ministry on parallel importing and
concluded that allowing parallel importing continued to be beneficial
to the New
Zealand economy.95
91 See Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc v MDS
diagnostics Ltd [2010] NZHC 1070; 93 IPR 14 at 250.
92 The issue of ISP liability is discussed in more detail from
paragraph 414.
93 A person may not, of course, import pirated copies of copyright
works for resale in New Zealand. When someone parallel imports sound
recordings,
films or software for resale, section 35 requires the importer to be able to
prove that the copies are not infringing
copies.
94 See section 12(5A) of the Copyright Act
95 The report can be found at http:http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/intellectual-
property/parallel-importing-in-new-zealand/documents-and-images/costs-benefits-preventing-parallel-
imports-into-NZ.pdf
Section 3 – Specific issues with the current
rights
Communication to the public and communication works
The
right of communication to the public
- A
number of changes were made to the Copyright Act in 2008 to ensure that the Act
reflected new technological developments. One of
the amendments was the
introduction of a right of communication to the public.96
‘Communicate’ is defined as:97
transmit or
make available by means of a communication technology, including by means of a
telecommunications system or electronic
retrieval system, and communication has
a corresponding meaning.
- The
communication right replaced references to transmission by traditional
broadcasting methods. The new term ‘communication
to the public’ was
intended to:
- clarify that
broadcasting over the internet and making content like television programs,
podcasts, movies and sound recordings available
on the internet were
captured
- be
technologically neutral in the sense that it would encompass how content might
be distributed in the future.
- The
intention behind making the definition of the communication right
technologically neutral was to ensure that the definition would
cover future
technological developments. By doing this the law would not need to be
frequently updated as new ways of distributing
content were
developed.
- One
problem with this approach is that it is not possible to foresee the future,
particularly in relation to disruptive technologies
such as the internet. Even
if laws are designed to be technologically neutral, therefore, they should still
be reviewed regularly.
- Laws
that are technology neutral may not necessarily be ‘fair’, and may
end up discriminating between technologies based
only on technological
differences. This is because they may not take account of fundamental
differences between technologies. For
example, the communication right is
intended to cover both traditional broadcasting and technologies like streaming
video on demand.
But these are very different technologies, and a
technologically neutral definition may not be the best
approach.
18
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way the right of
communication to the public operates? What changes, if any, might
be
needed?
|
96 See section 16(1)(f) of the Copyright Act.
Introducing the right was also intended to enable New Zealand to accede to the
WCT. New
Zealand is obliged to accede to the WCT as part of its CPTPP
commitments.
97 See section 2 of the Copyright Act.
Communication works
- The
2008 amendments to the Copyright Act also created a new type of copyright work:
a communication work. It is defined as:
a transmission of sounds,
visual images, or other information, or a combination of any of those, for
reception by members of the public,
and includes a broadcast or a cable
programme.
Figure 3: Composition of a communication work
- References
in the Act to ‘broadcasting’ and ‘cable programmes’ were
replaced with
references to ‘communication works’. Similar to the new
communication right, the new terminology was intended to incorporate
transmission of copyright works online98 and be technologically
neutral to take account of future technological advances.
- New
Zealand is the only country that protects transmissions in general as a category
of work in their own right. Many other countries99 treat over-the-air
broadcasts as copyright works but this does not usually extend to broadcasting
over the Internet.
- A
communication work is a transmission of content. It gives the transmitter (eg
broadcaster) rights in the transmitted content. Often
the transmitted content is
protected by copyright, like a movie. Sometimes it is not (eg a live rugby
game).
- The
concept of ‘communication work’ is different to the ‘right to
communicate a work to the public’.100 The concept of
communication work effectively gives the person transmitting the communication
work rights over the communication
itself, even though they may not own the
copyright in the all of the underlying works incorporated in the communication
work.
Potential Issues with the definition of communication
work
Definition of ‘the public’
- In
order for a transmission to qualify as a communication work, it must be for
reception by members of the public. ‘On-demand’
content is streamed
on request to an individual viewer or household. We have heard that there is
uncertainty over whether the viewer
or
98 The original use of “broadcasts” and
“cable programmes” created a distinction between wired or wireless
methods
of transmission. This fitted uncomfortably with changes (consider
viewing a programme online: it may come by wire to a router, but
then be
delivered to your device by Wi-Fi).
99 Particularly countries that are members of the International
Convention for the Protection of Performers,
Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (the Rome Convention).
New Zealand is not a member of the Rome Convention.
100 See previous section.
household constitutes the ‘public’. If it does not, then the stream
of content may not qualify as a communication work,
and not be eligible for
copyright protection (although the content will still be protected by
copyright).
Re-transmisson
- Many
entities provide Wi-Fi services to their employees or customers. If a Wi-Fi user
receives a communication work, then the work
is taken from the Internet and
re-transmitted by the Wi-Fi service. This re-transmission will usually be made
without the explicit
permission of the copyright owner, so does it infringe
copyright in the communication work?
- A
Wi-Fi service may be intended to serve only a particular group of people, for
example guests in a hotel. However, the Wi-Fi signals
may be receivable by
persons outside the hotel. This may mean that those persons may receive
transmissions that are not intended
for them. For example, a hotel may subscribe
to a streaming video on demand service intended for its guests. If the
hotel’s
Wi-Fi transmissions can be received by people who are not guests,
does this infringe the copyright in the communication
work?
19
|
What problems (or benefits) are there with communication works as a
category of copyright work? What alternatives (if any) should
be
considered?
|
How should digital content be treated?
Use of the
term ‘object’ in the Copyright Act
- One
of the central concepts used in the Copyright Act is ‘infringing
copy’. The term
‘infringing copy’ is defined in section 12 of the Copyright Act.
This definition refers to ‘an object that is an infringing
copy’. That is, an infringing copy is defined as a copy that
is, or is
embodied in, an object. The term ‘object’ in this context is not
defined in the Copyright Act.
- When
the Act was amended in 2008, steps were taken to ensure that
‘copying’ (and therefore copies) was defined in broad
and
technologically neutral terms. It was made clear that reproducing, recordings
and storing a work in any material form ‘including
any digital
format’ was an act of copying.101 The Act defines
‘copy’ and ‘copies’ as having corresponding meanings to
‘copying’.
- At
the same time provisions were inserted into the Act to clarify when ISPs, whose
services are used to distribute and store with
copies in digital format, would
be liable for copyright infringement.
- The
Act, especially in relation to defining infringement of copyright (eg sections
12 and 35), refers to an ‘object’ without
explicitly defining the
term. For example, section 12 provides
that an ‘object’ is an infringing copy if its making constitutes an
infringement of copyright in the work in question.
Section 35 provides that a
person infringes copyright in a work by, for example, importing an ‘object
that is an infringing
copy’. When the term ‘object’ is read
in
isolation, the use of the term ‘object’ may create an impression
that the Copyright Act only
101 Section 2 of the Copyright Act and the definition
of ‘copying’, ‘copy’ and ‘copies’.
protects copies in a some tangible form or physical objects embodying a copy,
such as a book or CD.
- To
avoid the risk of confusion, it may be time to consider whether the term
‘object’ should be replaced by language that
removes any suggestion
that some copies do not infringe copyright merely because of the format or
medium in which they exist or the
way they are accessed.
20
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with using ‘object’ in the
Copyright Act? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Implications of Dixon v R in the copyright context
- A
Supreme Court Decision102 has raised questions about the interface
between the Crimes Act 1961 and the Copyright Act 1994. The decision
concerned an incident where a person gained unauthorised access to a computer
system and
copied digital files on that system onto a USB memory stick. The
person then deleted the files from the computer system.
- Dixon
was charged and convicted under s249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.
Section 249(1)(a) provides that a person commits an offence if he or she
“directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby,
dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right ...
obtains any
property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable
consideration”.
- Dixon
appealed his conviction on the basis that digital data is not
‘property’ as defined in s2 of the Crimes Act. The Court of
Appeal agreed but substituted the conviction with one for dishonestly obtaining
a ‘benefit’ under the same
subsection.
- Dixon
then further appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the Court of
Appeal’s decision and reinstated the original
conviction. The Court held
that the Crimes Act definition of ‘property’ does indeed
extend to digital data.
Why might this be an issue?
- The
effect of the Supreme Court’s decision is that digital files can be
treated as property for the purposes of section 249(1)(a)
of the Crimes Act
1961. This may have the effect of providing property rights over the
information contained in digital files in some circumstances. The Supreme
Court
was, however, careful to emphasise that its ruling that digital data could be
property applies only for the specific provision
in the Crimes Act under
which the case was decided, and that context was critical to the
decision.
- This
raises some questions. For example, providing a property right over information
itself may run counter to the approach taken
in the Copyright Act (and in most
other jurisdictions) that copyright only gives rights to the way in which
information is expressed
rather than the information itself.103 This
is particularly important today given that much information is now only readily
available in digital files.
102 Dixon v R [2015] NZSC 147
103 See discussion on idea vs expression in paragraph 124.
21
|
Do you have any concerns about the implications of the Supreme
Court’s decision in Dixon v R? Please explain.
|
User-generated content
- There
has been a proliferation of user-generated content in recent years.
User-generated content is content often created by non-professionals
with low
levels of investment with the intent to share it on social media platforms for
the enjoyment of others. The content will
usually be made available for free,
and the creators will usually not expect to make any money from
it.
- User-generated
content can be heavily inspired by existing content. Examples include memes, fan
fiction, blogs and mash-ups. User-generated
content can qualify for copyright
protection.
22
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with how the Copyright Act applies to
user-generated content? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Renunciation of rights
- Copyright
arises automatically when an original work is created. But there are some works
where the creator wants to renounce their
rights in the work. In these cases the
creator did not create the work in the expectation of commercial gain, and wants
anyone to
be able to use or copy the work. Often these creators will indicate in
their work that it is free for anyone to use, for example
by including a
statement in the work that the creator ‘dedicates’ it to the public
domain.
- There
is currently no mechanism in the Copyright Act that allows creators or copyright
owners to renounce all of their rights in a
work. Section 107 of the Act allows
authors to waive their moral rights but none of the other rights conferred by
the Act can be
waived.
- Creators
or copyright owners wishing to renounce all of their rights could use the
Creative Commons (CC0) ‘No Rights Reserved’
license.104
However, such licences can be revoked. For example if an author has made her
works available on a CC0 license, the descendants of
the author could revoke the
licence after the author had died.
23
|
What are the advantages and disadvantages of not being able to renounce
copyright? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Other issues
- We
would like to hear if there are any other concerns related to the scope of the
exclusive rights and their infringement.
104 See https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/
24
|
Do you have any other concerns with the scope of the exclusive rights and
how they can be infringed? Please describe.
|
Section 4 – Moral rights, performers’ rights and
technological protection measures
- The
Copyright Act provides rights to people in addition to the core copyright
protections described in Sections 1 and 2. This Section
focuses on some of these
additional rights: moral rights, performers’ rights and technological
protection measures.
Moral rights
- Moral
rights are a set of rights given to creators that are independent of the rights
given to authors under copyright. They were
originally granted on the basis that
creative works were an extension of their creator’s personality. Their
main focus has
traditionally been to protect the personal reputation of
creators.
Current situation
- The
Copyright Act gives authors and movie directors105 the following
moral rights:
- the right to be
identified as the author or director of their work (right of attribution)
- the right to
object to derogatory treatment of their work
- the right not to
have a work falsely attributed to them.
- The
Act also gives people who commission a film or photograph the right not to have
it shared or communicated to the public.
- Moral
rights generally expire when copyright in the relevant work
expires106 and are not transferrable other than to the author’s
estate upon their death (for example by will).
The right of attribution and the right to object to derogatory
treatment
- The
Copyright Act gives to authors of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic
copyright works the right to be identified as the author
or director of films.
It also gives them the right to object to any addition to, deletion from,
alteration to, or adaptation of their
work if it would be prejudicial to their
honour or reputation. There is a relationship between the right to object to
derogatory
treatment and freedom of expression that would need to be
carefully
105 Moral rights are given to authors of all works
other than films (as defined by section 5 of the Act). For films, moral rights
are
given to the film’s director rather than its author.
106 An exception is the right not to have work falsely attributed,
which is not tied to a single work. It expires 20
years after the person who holds the right dies.
considered. When, for example, would adaption of a work for the purpose of
parody amount to derogatory treatment?107
- The
rights apply in specified circumstances, essentially when the work is put into
circulation or dealt with commercially.108 The right of attribution
must be asserted in writing by the author or director before it is
effective.
The right not to have a work falsely attributed or
represented
- The
Copyright Act gives people the right not to have a literary, dramatic, musical
or artistic work falsely attributed to them as
the author of it or as the author
of a work it was adapted from. It also gives people the right not to have a film
falsely attributed
to them as the director.
The right not to have a film or photograph you have
commissioned shared or communicated to the public
- The
Copyright Act gives a person who commissions a photograph or a film for private
and domestic purposes the right not to have copies
of the work issued to the
public, exhibited or shown in public or communicated to the
public.
Possible issues with moral rights
- We
have heard that moral rights are complex to understand and difficult to rely on
in practice. As far as we are aware, moral rights
have not been enforced in the
courts.
- We
have also heard that moral rights are too limited. The derogatory treatment
right is restricted to addition, deletion, alteration
or adaptation of a work.
Some people have suggested that the right should go further and, for example,
cover culturally inappropriate
uses.
25
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the way the moral rights are
formulated under the Copyright Act? What changes to the rights
(if any) should
be considered?
|
Performers’ rights
- Performers’
rights are a set of rights given to performers including singers, actors and
dancers. The rights usually apply when
a recording of a performance is made,
when a performance is communicated to the public (for example, when broadcast
live) or when
a recording of a performance is copied or used in specified
ways.
- There
are three general categories of performers’ rights:
- The right to
consent to recording or live communication: This right enables performers to
control whether their performances are recorded or communicated live to the
public. The right is
not considered a property right and cannot be
transferred.
- Property
rights in recorded performances: These give performers the exclusive
right
107 Exceptions for uses that facilitate freedom of
expression (eg parody and satire) are discussed in the next Part, from paragraph
307.
108 Sections 94 and 99 of the Copyright Act.
to authorise specific acts in relation to recordings made from their
performances.109
- Moral rights
in performances: These give performers moral rights in their performances,
like the right to be identified as the performer and to object to derogatory
treatment of their performance. Moral rights in performances can apply both to
the performance itself and recordings made from a
performance.110
Current situation
- The
Copyright Act currently provides a performer with the first category of
performers’ right: performers have the right not
to have their performance
recorded or communicated live to the public without their consent.
- If
a performer has not consented to the recording of their performance, the
recording is an ‘illicit recording’. A person
infringes a
performer’s rights if they copy or otherwise deal with any illicit
recording – for example, playing or showing
it in public, communicating it
to the public, importing it or commercially dealing with it.111
- The
Copyright Act does not currently give performers property rights in recorded
performances or moral rights in their performances.
Changes under CPTPP
- CPTPP
requires New Zealand to join the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty
(WPPT). The WPPT requires that performers be given certain moral and
economic rights over recordings made from, and the broadcasting of,
their live
performances. The new economic rights apply only to sound recordings made from
their performances – they are not
given any economic rights in relation to
the visual aspects of their performance (eg a recording of their performance on
film).
- CPTPP
also requires that performers be able to transfer their economic rights by
contract.
- The
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Act 2016 (TPP
Act)112 already contains the changes required to join the WPPT
and CPTPP. These changes will come into force on
30 December 2018, the date CPTPP enters into force for New Zealand.
26
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with providing performers with greater
rights over the sound aspects of their performances than
the visual
aspects?
|
27
|
Will there be other problems (or benefits) with the performers’
rights regime once the CPTPP changes come into effect? What
changes to the
performers’ rights regime (if any) should be considered after those
changes come into effect?
|
109 These exclusive rights in performances recorded
in sound recordings and films typically sit alongside the exclusive rights
copyright
owners have in those sound recordings and films.
110 See paragraphs 226 to 235 for more information on moral rights.
111 See sections 172-174 of the Act.
112 Note that the title of this Act was amended to the
‘Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-
Pacific Partnership Amendment Act 2018’ by the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Act 2018, which was enacted
on 25
October 2018 .
Technological protection measures
- Technological
Protection Measures (TPMs) are ‘digital locks’ that copyright
holders use to stop their works being copied or accessed without their
permission.
There are two main types of TPMs:
- TPMs that
protect against copyright infringement (copy controls): these prevent a
person from infringing copyright in a work (for example by preventing a person
from making a copy of it) but do
not prevent a person from accessing the work to
read, listen or watch it.
- TPMs that
control access to copyright works (access controls): these prevent
unauthorised people from being able to access content to read, listen or watch
it.
- Examples
of copy control TPMs include encryption measures that prevent you copying a
movie or song, software locks that prevent you
from making a copy of a computer
programme, and functions that ‘lock’ documents to prevent them from
being printed or
‘copy and pasted’.
- Examples
of access control TPMs include the technological measures an online news
provider puts in place to enforce paywalls to access
certain articles, regional
locks that limit the availability of content to a specific geographic region
(‘geo-segmentation’)
and functions that ‘lock’ products
or services to particular providers (eg technical measures that prevent people
fixing
cars unless they are authorised to access the software in a
car).
- TPMs
can facilitate the development of online business models for the delivery of
copyright works to consumers. They can also impede
the reasonable use of
copyright works by consumers and businesses.
Current situation
- The
definition of ‘TPM’ in the Copyright Act means that only copy
control TPMs are protected.113 Access control TPMs are expressly
excluded from the TPMs regime.
- Section
226A of the Act prohibits a person from:114
- dealing in a TPM
circumvention device115
- providing a
service intended to enable or assist a person to circumvent a TPM
- publishing
information that enables or assists another person to circumvent a TPM, if the
person knows or has reason to believe that
the device or service will be used to
circumvent a TPM.116
- The
actual act of circumventing a TPM is not prohibited.
113 Section 226 of the Copyright Act defines a TPM to
be “any process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system that in the
normal
course of its operation prevents or inhibits the infringement of
copyright in a TPM work”.
114 MBIE is not aware of any prosecutions for contravening section
226A.
115 A TPM circumvention device is a device or means that is
primarily designed or adapted to enable the circumvention of a TPM and has
limited other commercial applications.
116 Section 226A of the Copyright Act prohibits making, importing,
selling, distributing, letting for hire, offering or exposing for sale
or hire,
or advertising for sale or hire, a TPM circumvention device.
TPMs exceptions and limitations
- There
are certain exceptions to the TPMs prohibitions. For example, people may provide
a TPM circumvention device to a ‘qualified
person’. Qualified
persons are certain librarians,117 archivists or an educational
establishment.118 A user of a copyright work who wishes to make use
of a copyright exception may also ask a qualified person to assist them to
circumvent
a TPM but only if the copyright owner or exclusive licensee has
refused to assist the user to circumvent the TPM, or failed to respond
to a
request for assistance within a reasonable time.119
- Any
person may use a TPM circumvention device to circumvent a TPM to make use of one
of the exceptions in Part 3 of the Act. If a
person circumvents a TPM for other
purposes, for example to make a copy of a TPM protected work for distribution to
others without
the
copyright owner’s permission, this would infringe copyright in the
work.
Other protection for TPMs
- TPMs
are also protected under sections 248 to 252 of the Crimes Act 1961 but
the nature and scope of that protection is outside the scope of this
review.120
TPP changes to TPMs regime not to come into effect
- TPP
obligations on TPMs included extending the regime to access control TPMs and
giving stronger rights to copyright owners. The changes
were included in the TPP
Act but, as these obligations were suspended under CPTPP, they will not be
brought into force.
Testing the TPMs regime
- Some
people have told us that the regime does not provide enough protection for
distributing copyright works in the digital environment.
Others have told us
that digital markets appear to be developing adequately with the current TPMs
regime so no change is required.
- We
have also heard that the TPMs regime is overly restrictive for users of
copyright works and that the qualified person regime is
impractical and
underutilised.
28
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the TPMs protections? What changes
(if any) should be considered?
|
29
|
Is it clear what the TPMs regime allows and what it does not allow? Why/why
not?
|
117 Librarians of the National Library, the
Parliamentary library, law libraries and libraries maintained by educational
establishments,
government departments and local authorities, libraries that are
members of the interloan scheme and libraries of Crown entities.
118 Section 226D of the Copyright Act.
119 Section 226E of the Copyright Act.
120 For example, it is an offence to access a computer system for
a dishonest purpose or without authorisation (which could include circumventing
a TPM). It is also an offence to distribute software (for example, a TPM
circumvention device) or aid another person to commit such
an offence.
Part 5 – Exceptions and Limitations
Introduction
- Copyright
law provides a number of ‘exceptions’ to copyright infringement to
allow desirable and appropriate use and access
to creative works. These are acts
that the Copyright Act expressly permits someone to perform in certain
circumstances, which would
otherwise require authorisation from the copyright
owner. These permitted acts are sometimes
referred to as ‘fair dealing’.
- The
Copyright Act has three main types of exceptions:
- Exceptions for
particular uses – anyone can rely on these exceptions for
the described purpose (eg a ‘fair dealing’ with a copyright work for
the
purpose of criticism, review or news reporting).
- Exceptions for
particular users – these exceptions can be used only by a
particular class or group of people or organisations (eg educational
institutions and
teachers can use the education exceptions for certain
educational purposes).
- Exceptions for
particular works – these exceptions allow particular
activities in relation to certain copyright works (eg exceptions to allow format
shifting
of sound recordings in certain circumstances).
- The
copyright regime also has a number of ‘limitations’. These
provisions limit liability for copyright infringement under
certain
circumstances. For example:
- Internet service
providers are not liable for copyright infringements that occur over their
networks or platforms by their subscribers
if certain conditions are met.
- Employees of the
Crown who infringe copyright with the authority of the Crown are not personally
liable (liability lies with the Crown).
International obligations and the framework for exceptions and
limitations
- New
Zealand has flexibility to decide if a particular exception or limitation is to
be applied and can determine how to implement
it, so long as it falls within a
framework known as the ‘three step test’.121 This test
requires that exceptions and limitations 1) be confined to certain special
cases, 2) do not conflict with a normal exploitation
of the work and 3) do not
unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder. This can be
achieved in a number of
ways, including restrictions on:
- the purpose of
the copying (eg only for personal use, or non-commercial use)
- the amount that
may be copied or the number of copies that can be made
- who may carry
out the copying (eg only a librarian employed in a prescribed
library).
121 Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Fair use and permitted acts
- The
Copyright Act, like the copyright regimes of comparable jurisdictions such as
Australia and the UK, take a closed approach to
providing copyright exceptions
(sometimes referred to as ‘fair dealing’). The Act seeks to
exhaustively describe specific
scenarios in which people can do things normally
reserved for the copyright owner. Any action not specifically identified by our
exceptions regime as a permitted act infringes copyright (if undertaken without
the authority of the copyright owner).
- In
contrast, a small number of countries have introduced a ‘fair use’
doctrine, modelled on US copyright law.122 Fair use involves the
courts applying four general principles that look at:
- the purpose and
character of the use
- the nature of
the work
- the amount and
substantiality of the portion copied
- effect of the
use on the potential market or value of the work.
- The
main difference between the two approaches is that fair use is not limited to a
particular use or purpose.
- We
have heard that incorporating a fair use exceptions regime into New Zealand law
would:
- provide a more
flexible exceptions regime that would better respond to a rapidly changing
technological environment
- reduce the need
for a long list of specific, technologically-bound exceptions that can be hard
to navigate and impede innovation and
creativity
- be consistent
with the intent of the copyright system to encourage creativity that adds to the
range of works available to the public
- allow people to
use copyright material in ways that do not harm the interests of copyright
owners without fear of litigation.
- Critics
of fair use tend to say that:
- it does not lead
to the development of clear, bright line rules because the courts must determine
whether a use is fair on a case-by-case
basis , and the outcome of any given
case depends on a fact-specific inquiry
- the requirement
to go to court to determine whether fair use applies may mean the doctrine only
gets used by large corporations
- users frequently
misunderstand the fair use doctrine as meaning ‘free use’, adding
costs to the system to educate users
about when the fair use exception might
apply to a particular use
- there is no
evidence that fair use on its own stimulates innovation and creativity
- fair use may
make it harder for copyright owners to prove infringement as they must establish
that the alleged infringing use was
not fair
use.
- Although
the main focus of this Issues Paper is to identify problems with the Copyright
Act as it currently is, we have included a
discussion on adopting a fair use
exception because there
122 See section 107 of the US Copyright Act.
has been a lot of debate about whether New Zealand should incorporate a fair use
exception in our copyright law.
- However,
we need a much better understanding of the problems with the current exceptions
regime before we consider alternative options.
Understanding these problems
properly will enable us to determine whether adopting a fair use exception
– or some alternative
course – would be the best way of addressing
them. Submitters should therefore focus on the problems or benefits with the
current
situation (our current permitted acts exceptions) rather than on the
reasons why New Zealand should incorporate a fair use
exception.
- There
will be an opportunity to provide your views on specific changes to the
Copyright Act in later stages of the review.
How we have arranged the rest of this Part
- The
issues in this part are grouped under the following
topics:
- Section 1
– Exceptions that facilitate particular desirable uses
- Section 2
– Libraries and archives exceptions
- Section 3
– Education exceptions
- Section 4
– Exceptions relating to particular works
- Section 5
– Contracting out of the exceptions
- Section 6
– Limitations on ISP liability.
Section 1 – Exceptions that facilitate particular
desirable uses
Introduction
- It
is important to ensure that the default rule (do not copy or distribute without
permission of the copyright owner) does not apply
in situations where there may
be little, if any, policy rationale for requiring permission. Currently the
Copyright Act includes
a range of exceptions to facilitate particular desirable
uses:
- Use of a work
for the purpose of criticism, review and news reporting (which support freedom
of communication and expression), or
research and private study (which supports
the pursuit of knowledge). What is ‘fair’ in these circumstances
will depend
on the particular facts of the case.
- Transient and
incidental copying exceptions allow copying to facilitate the basic
functionality of new technology and ensure copyright
is not a barrier to common
technological processes or everyday activities.
- In
this section we look at these exceptions, test whether there are possible issues
and consider whether there are other desirable
uses that may not be covered by
these exceptions.
Exceptions for criticism, review, news reporting and research
or study
Current situation
- Sections
42 and 43 of the Copyright Act permit ‘fair dealing’ with a
copyright work for the purposes of criticism, review,
news reporting, research
or private study does not infringe copyright in the work.
- There
is a lack of binding precedent available to guide courts as to what amounts to
‘fair dealing’ in these circumstances,
as there have been very few
court cases in New Zealand.123 Only one of the fair dealing
exceptions sets out the factors a court must consider when
determining whether there has been fair dealing.124 Whether a
particular use of a work falls within one of the exceptions is always a matter
of fact, degree and interpretation.
- The
table below provides a summary of the current situation with examples of
activities that may be considered to fall within the
scope of these exceptions,
the legislative guidance and the main precedents.
123 The
main (non-interlocutory) case for which we do have a New Zealand court judgment
on fair dealing is Copyright Licensing Ltd v University of Auckland
[2002] 3 NZLR 76 (HC), concerning the copying of copyright works by
universities for distribution to students. Courts may have regard to
international
cases on this point, but they do not provide binding
precedent.
124 Section 43(3) of the Copyright Act.
Table.6: Fair dealing provisions
Purpose
|
Example
|
Legislative guidance as to what is a fair dealing
|
How has it been interpreted?
|
Research or private study (s43)
|
Academic research; research by a company; study of a subject by a
student.
|
Yes, a court must have regard to the:
- purpose
of the copying
- nature
of the work copied
- commercial
availability
- effect
of the copying on the work’s potential market, or value
- if part
of a work is copied, the amount and substantiality of that part in relation to
the whole work.
|
- Research
is the searching into a matter or close study of it and can have a commercial
purpose. Private study is a form of study which
is
personal to the
person undertaking it.125
- Has
been held not to apply to a lecturer making copies for students because the
purpose must be that of the person ‘doing the
copying’.
In
this case, the lecturer’s purpose for copying was
providing source materials to students rather than
research or private study.126
|
Criticism or review (s42(1))
|
A movie blog that rates films and, to do so, quotes lines from a
film’s script or includes screenshots of a film’s characters.
|
No guidance but to qualify as a fair dealing the use must be accompanied by
a sufficient acknowledgement.
|
- ‘Criticism’
and ‘review’ should be given their ordinary
meaning.127
- Has
been held not to apply to a lecturer making copies for students because the
purpose must be that of the person ‘doing the
copying’.
In
this case, the lecturer’s purpose for copying was
providing source materials to students rather than
criticism or review.128
|
Reporting current events
(s 42(2) and
(3))
|
A TV news programme showing a brief clip from another channel’s
broadcast of a sports event.
A newspaper including quotes
from a TV channel’s interview with a politician.
|
No guidance where reporting is done ‘by means of a sound recording,
film, or communication work’.
No guidance where reporting is effected by any other means (e.g a literary
work) but the use must be accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
Photographs are expressly
excluded from the exception.
|
- The
material copied need not be current provided it is properly used to report
current events.129
- Both
the length and level of repetition of clips appears to be
relevant.130
- Use in
sports magazine programmes is likely to be entertainment, rather than reporting
current events.131
|
125 The meaning of “research or private
study” was considered in relation to the equivalent of section 43 in the
Copyright
Act 1962 (section 19(1)) in TVNZ v Newsmonitor Services [1993] NZHC 2004; [1994]
2 NZLR 91 (HC) at 105 et seq. This interpretation was confirmed in Copyright
Licensing Ltd v University of Auckland [2002] 3 NZLR 76 (HC)
126 Copyright Licensing Ltd v University of Auckland [2002]
3 NZLR 76 (HC)
127 Ibid
128 Ibid
129 Ibid., at para 39
130 Mediaworks v Sky CIV 2007-404-5674, in an interlocutory
judgment dated 18 September 2007, at para 74 the judge noted that while the
length of the clips
used was not excessive, weight should also be placed on
the
repetition of the clips during the day.
131 Ibid at para 140. Using the standard of proof required in
interlocutory proceedings, the judge held that TV3 had a ‘very strong
case’ that the use of World Cup clips in ‘sports magazine’
programmes like The Crowd Goes
Wild was not a use of a work “for the purpose of reporting
current events”. Rather, this equated to the use of a work for the
purpose
of entertainment.
Potential issues with these exceptions
Is it clear when an exception can be relied upon?
- We
have heard that for some stakeholders the lack of certainty resulting from these
exceptions creates a chilling effect on the use,
adaptation and consumption of
copyright works.
- We
have also heard complaints about people using these exceptions principally in
pursuit of a commercial outcome, rather than in pursuit
of knowledge for which
they are intended. Examples of this are:
- copying works
for research with a commercial end in mind
- recording and
making available online snippets of pay-to-view broadcasts of live sports events
from licensed distributors primarily
for purpose of attracting viewers and,
therefore, increasing advertising income.
30
|
Do you have examples of activities or uses that have been impeded by the
current framing and interpretation of the exceptions for
criticism, review, news
reporting and research or study? Is it because of a lack of certainty? How do
you assess any risk relating
to the use? Have you ever been threatened with, or
involved in, legal action? Are there any other barriers to making use of this
exception?
|
31
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with how any of the criticism, review,
news reporting and research or study exceptions operate
in practice? Under what
circumstances, if any, should someone be able to use these exceptions for a
commercial outcome? What changes
(if any) should be considered?
|
Should photographs be excluded from fair dealing for the
purpose of reporting current events?
- Section
42(3) of the Copyright Act provides an exception for news reporting with any
work, except photographs. We have heard concerns
about the different treatment
of photographs compared to video clips of events. It has been suggested that the
distinction no longer
makes sense with the way news is reported
now.
32
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with photographs being excluded from
the exception for news reporting? What changes (if any) should
be
considered?
|
Is it clear what qualifies as a ‘current event’ and
who can report on them?
- While
reporting of current events may be something that is done in the ‘news
media’, the definition of ‘news media’
(and its contributors)
may vary over time. The notion of what is, and who are, the ‘news
media’ and the distinction between
news and entertainment may be changing
with events increasingly being announced, noted and critiqued in online social
media (such
as Twitter and Facebook). In the English case of
Tixdaq,132 for example, the defendants operated a website and app
with which users (ordinary cricket fans) could upload short clips of cricket
matches they had captured from television broadcasts. The judge concluded that
the relevant provisions are not restricted to traditional
media and
that
132 England & Wales Cricket Board v Tixdaq
[2016] EWHC 575. Sections 42(2) and (3) of our Copyright Act
relating to reporting current events use similar wording to section 30(2) of
the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, making
English court cases
relevant to their interpretation.
‘citizen journalism’ can qualify as reporting current events. This
means that if a member of the public captures images
and/or sound of a
newsworthy event using their mobile phone and uploads it to a social media site
like Twitter, they may qualify
as reporting current events even if it is
accompanied by relatively little in the way of commentary.133
33
|
What other problems (or benefits), if any, have you experienced with the
exception for reporting current events? What changes (if
any) should be
considered?
|
Exception for making copies for persons with a print
disability
- Section
69 of the Act provides an exception to copyright which allows bodies prescribed
in the regulations to make or communicate
copies of literary or dramatic works
that are modified to be accessible to persons with a print
disability.
- A
Bill amending section 69 will shortly be introduced to Parliament. The
amendments will allow New Zealand to accede to the Marrakesh Treaty to
Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually
Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.134
Transient and incidental exceptions
Current situation
- The
copyright regime provides exceptions for the inadvertent use of copyright works,
ensuring that copyright protection does not impede
everyday activities,
including common technological processes. They exceptions include:
- ‘incidental
copying’, eg coverage of an event that inadvertently captures the sound of
a popular song being played in
the background
- ‘transient
or incidental reproduction’, eg the copying of film by a DVD player makes
during the process of playing the
film.
Incidental copying
- Section
41 provides that artistic works, sound recordings, films and communication works
can contain incidental copies of works protected
by copyright, and such copies
do not infringe copyright.
- The
exception does not apply to copies of copyright work in literary, dramatic or
musical work. This appears to be because copying
effected by these types of
works is likely to involve deliberate copying.
- The
term ‘incidental’ is not defined and its meaning has not been
considered by the courts in New Zealand. Specifying
the categories of works that
can incorporate incidentally copied
133 Ibid., at para 140
134 See the section on “International Obligations” in
Part 4 of this Issues Paper.
works, together with the ordinary meaning of incidental, suggests that
incidental must be unintentional.
- Although
section 41 has equivalents in most comparable jurisdictions, including Canada
(section 30.7 of the Copyright Act 1985), Australia (section 67 of the
Copyright Act 1968), and the UK (section 31 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988), their scope is not of the same breadth as section 41.
For example, Australia only provides an exception for artistic works
incidentally
copied in films and television broadcasts. None of these provisions
appear to have had significant judicial consideration.
34
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the exception for incidental
copying of copyright works? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Transient or incidental reproduction
- Section
43A provides that:
A reproduction of a work does not infringe copyright in the work if the
reproduction –
(a) is transient or incidental; and
(b) is an integral and essential part of a technological process for
–
- (i) making or
receiving a communication that does not infringe copyright; or
(ii) enabling the lawful use of, or lawful dealing in, the work; and
(c) has no independent economic significance
- The
exception was intended to be limited to the reproduction right for
‘transient’ copying of works in digital format
made by devices or
communication networks, like the internet, as a result of automatic or
inevitable technical processes. These processes
are generally designed to
increase efficiency.135 For example, transient copies of a film made
by a device in order to play it.
- Neither
‘transient’ nor ‘incidental’ is defined in the Act. Nor
is ‘reproduction’, but it appears
to be analogous to
‘copying’ since the definition of copying includes
‘reproduction’.
- There
has been little discussion of the precise meaning of section 43A. Commentators
have described the provision as ‘limited’
because they do not
capture technologies (like internet caching)136 which may not be
considered an integral and essential part of a technological
process.137
35
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the exception transient
reproduction of works? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
135 See the Cabinet Paper which approved the
provision for introduction to Parliament: “Paper considered by the Cabinet
Economic
Development Committee, ‘Digital Technology and the Copyright Act
1994: Policy
Recommendations’, October 2002, published on former MED website June
2003, at para 18
136 Internet caching is where frequently-accessed online content
is stored to speed up the delivery of web content to end users.
137 Frankel, S., ‘Intellectual Property Law in New
Zealand’, 2nd edition, 2011, at para 5.11.2(a)
Are there other desirable uses that are not covered by these
exceptions?
- We
have heard that there may be other desirable uses that are not specifically
reflected in our exceptions regime. These include:
- uses to enable
technological processes, like cloud computing
- non-expressive
uses, like data mining for the purposes of research or developing artificial
intelligence
- uses that
facilitate freedom of expression, like parody and satire, social and political
commentary or use of quotations in wider
contexts than review and
criticism.
Technological processes (cloud computing)
What is the cloud and how is it used
- The
‘cloud’ refers to services that work via remote servers hosted on
the internet, rather than a local server or personal
computer. Both individuals
and business can benefit from using cloud based services. These services
include:
- cloud storage
– this enables users to store copies of works on a remote server such that
the works can be retrieved using different
devices and locations, eg
Dropbox
- cloud backup
– this enables users to back up to the cloud to protect against data loss
arising from loss or damage to devices
or by ransomware, eg iCloud
- cloud compute
– this enables users to access on-demand processing power and online
services, eg Google Cloud and Xero cloud
accounting.
- These
services allow users to do these activities online and without needing to use
their own physical storage device (eg hard drive).
However, they still run on
physical computers and
they rely on copying of information from a user’s computer or device to
the remote server and back again.
Current situation
- There
are no current exceptions that specifically address the reasonable use of cloud
services. When the copyright regime was last
reviewed, the types of cloud
services currently available did not exist.
- The
current exception for transient reproduction138 is unlikely to cover
cloud services, which involve making permanent copies that can be accessed by a
user (and therefore have economic
value).
- The
copyright regime also currently provides specific exceptions allowing copying on
behalf of a user for backing-up computer programs
(section 80) and
format-shifting of sound recordings (section 81A).139 The
format-shifting exception, however, only applies to sound recordings and allows
a shift in format (eg from a CD to storage on
an MP3 player), rather than making
further a copies of the recording for playing on the same
device.
138 See paras 285-288 on transient reproduction.
139 A discussion on format shifting is at paragraphs 382 to 386.
36
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the way the copyright exceptions
apply to cloud computing? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
37
|
Are there any other current or emerging technological processes we should
be considering for the purposes of the review?
|
Non-expressive use of copyright works (data mining and the
creation of artificial intelligence)
What is data mining and how is it used
- Data
mining involves using a computer programme to extract patterns from large
datasets. Its use in commercial and non-commercial
research is becoming
increasingly common and the insights it can produce are valuable. Examples of
such ‘copy-reliant technology’
include computer translation services
like Google Translate (that copy millions of online translations) and plagiarism
detection
software (that copy millions of academic texts).
- It
has been suggested that the purpose of copying in data mining is ‘not to
convey the work’s expressive qualities to
the public, but rather to enable
banks of microprocessors to index the context of those works and to generate
metadata about the
works’.140 This means that the final product
will not have any of the features of the original work.
- One
advanced application of data mining is artificial intelligence. Artificial
intelligence can be created by mining thousands of
data inputs (eg text, photos,
musical compositions) in order to teach a programme to draw out patterns and
insights. In doing so,
the programme develops its own intuition which can then
be applied to producing an output (this could include the creation of new
copyright works). We understand that some programmes do this by utilising inputs
they need to make temporary copies of them in the
computer’s short term
memory. Once the programmes have absorbed the lessons from the input they
discard the
copy from the computer’s short term memory.
Current situation
- The
Act does not include any specific exceptions to allow or facilitate data mining
and the creation of artificial intelligence. However,
the inputs, or works, that
are mined for data (eg literary works, photos, and sound recordings) are often
protected by copyright.141
Potential issues with data mining
- We
have heard that entities currently utilising data mining can either:
- get permission
for the use of every input from every copyright owner (this is likely to result
in limitations on the inputs that can
be used, as well as being costly and time-
consuming to obtain the necessary licences), or
- rely on the
exceptions for research and private study and transient
reproduction.
140 Sag, M., ‘Copyright and copy-reliant
technology’, March 2008, p.19
141 Issues around the extent to which copyright protection applies
to data and works generated (as opposed to mined) by artificial intelligence
are
discussed from paragraph 149 above.
- ‘Research’
has been interpreted as meaning ‘the searching into a matter or subject,
or the investigation or close
study of it ’.142 Data mining
could be described as a highly efficient, computerised research, for example to
support a computer translation service
and potentially falls within the research
exception.
- The
use of ‘research’ in section 43 (unlike ‘study’) is not
qualified by the word ‘private’ and
opens the possibility that the
exception extends to ‘something done with a commercial end in view
’.143 This could mean businesses copying works in the course of
a data-mining process could be protected to the same extent as persons
undertaking non-commercial research.
- Whether
the transient or incidental reproduction exception in section 43A might apply
depends in particular on how transient or incidental
is interpreted and whether
the copying is considered to be an integral and essential part of a
technological process for enabling
the lawful use or dealing in the work. This
appears to turn on the question of whether copying for the purpose of
data-mining is
a lawful use or dealing in the work.
What do other jurisdictions do?
- The
United Kingdom introduced a specific data mining exception in 2014 that allows
researchers to “make copies of any copyright
material for the purpose of
computational analysis if they already have the right to read the work (ie, they
have ‘lawful access’
to the work). This exception only permits the
making of copies for the purpose of text and data mining for non-commercial
research.”
144 A similarly limited exception is likely to be
introduced soon in the European Union145.
- In
Singapore, the Government has proposed introducing a general data mining
exception that would allow data mining for both commercial
and non-commercial
purposes.146 As with the UK and the EU, the person undertaking the
data mining would need to have lawful access to the copyright-protected
works.
- In
the United States’ ‘fair use’ context,147 the issue
does not appear to be fully settled yet. However, it has been argued that
“because the rights of the copyright owner
are generally limited to a
monopoly over the expressive aspects of their works, extending the rights of
copyright owners to encompass
non-expressive uses of their works by copy-reliant
technologies would constitute a significant departure from existing copyright
principle”.148
38
|
What problems (or benefits) are there with copying of works for
non-expressive uses like data-mining. What changes, if any, should
be
considered?
|
142 See TVNZ v Newsmonitor Services [1993] NZHC 2004; [1994] 2
NZLR 91 (HC) at 105 et seq, confirmed in Copyright Licensing Ltd v University
of Auckland [2002] 3 NZLR 76 (HC)
143 Blanchard J in TVNZ Ltd v Newsmonitor Services Ltd
[1993] NZHC 2004; [1994] 2 NZLR 91 (HC) at 105
144 See UK Intellectual Property Office, ‘Exceptions to
Copyright: Research’, October 2014, at p.6
145 See Article 3 of the EU proposed Directive on Copyright in the
Digital Single Market
146 See ‘Public Consultation on Changes to Singapore’s
Copyright Regime’, August 2016, at para 3.64
147 For a discussion of fair use exceptions used in some other
countries see from paragraph 261.
148 Sag, M., ‘Copyright and copy-reliant technology’,
March 2008, p.52. See also the decision in Authors Guild v HaithiTrust
755 F.3d
87 (2d Cir. 2014)
Uses that facilitate freedom of expression (such as parody & satire)
Context – what does parody and satire involve?
- Parody
is generally understood as an imitation of the style of a particular writer,
artist or genre with deliberate exaggeration for
comic effect. Satire concerns
the use of humour, irony, exaggeration or wit to expose, for example,
corruption, stupidity or human
vices. These forms of expression are generally
acknowledged as a “culturally appropriate way to criticise the worth of a
particular
work, as well as criticising the philosophy behind a particular work
and society in general”.149 However, some parodies and satire
may not be culturally appropriate and could cause offense to sections of the
community, including
Māori.
Current situation
- Section
42(1) of the Copyright Act provides for ‘fair dealing with a work for the
purposes of criticism or review’ which
facilitates freedom of expression.
The Act does not include any express exception for ‘freedom of
expression’- type uses
of copyright works, like parody and
satire.
- Currently,
a person or entity wanting to use a copyright work to create a parody or satire
for political comment would need to:
- gain permission
for the use from the copyright owner, or
- rely on current
exceptions for criticism, review or news reporting.
- It
may be costly or difficult to gain permission from the copyright owner,
particularly if the purpose of the use is to poke fun at
the copyright work
itself or its author.
- It
is possible that certain instances of parody and satire could fall within the
fair dealing exception for criticism and review.
There is no New Zealand case
law on this point. However in a Canadian case (prior to amendment in 2012 that
introduced a parody exception),
the Judge refused to read the word
‘criticism’ so widely as to include parody.150
- In
addition, moral rights attached to the original work may also limit certain
freedom of expression uses such as parody or satire,
as it may amount to
‘derogatory’ treatment of the work.
How do comparable jurisdictions deal with freedom of expression
uses?
- A
number of jurisdictions including Australia (since 2006),151 Canada
(since 2012),152 UK (since 2014)153, the US and several
continental European countries have introduced or developed exceptions that
allow for parody and satire.
- Internationally
there is no settled law or accepted definitions for parody and satire in
relation to the use of copyright works.
149 Frankel, S., ‘Intellectual Property Law in
New Zealand’, 2nd edition, 2011, at para 6.7.3 (c).
150 Ce G nrale des Etablissements Michelin -Michelin & C" v.
CAW Canada (1996) 71 CPR (3d) 348 (FCTD)
151 See section 41A of Australia’s Copyright Act
1968.
152 See section 29 of Canada’s Copyright Act 1985. The
Copyright Modernization Act 2012 (Bill C -11) added an express provision
allowing for parody and satire exceptions. However, it does not contain
definitions for these
exceptions.
153 See section 30 A of United Kingdom’s Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
- In
Australia, there is no definition of parody or satire, nor a framework for
testing whether a potentially infringing work qualifies
and there has not been
any judicial consideration of the exception.154
- The
US fair use exception is generally interpreted to allow parody, satire and
remix, including for commercial use.155 The US Supreme Court has
explained that fair use requires courts to avoid rigid application of the
copyright statute when it would
stifle the very creativity which that law is
designed to foster. Parody, the court found, has a definite claim to
transformative
value and thus may advance the purposes of copyright
law.
- The
Supreme Court drew a distinction between parody and satire by saying imitation
is essential for parody, while satire is less dependent
on the original. Parody
therefore concentrates on aiming its critical point at the original, while the
scope for satire is much wider,
aiming to criticise or comment on contemporary
customs or values.
Testing whether there are issues with facilitating freedom of
expression
- It
is arguable that the ambiguity in this area is becoming more problematic as the
ability to create and communicate parodies and
satires grows exponentially.
Meme-generators, and mash-up and remix apps, are readily available to New
Zealanders through their home
computers and mobile devices, and social media
platforms allow just about anyone to post or re-tweet the resulting
works.
- Even
if parody and satire are possible under current law, there are likely to be a
number of considerations. For instance, fair dealing
may be less likely to be
found if the parody or satire was created for a commercial purpose rather than
to critique the original
work or some
aspect of society. In this regard, one area of debate is
‘adbusting’, where the copyright holder is a business, the copyright
work is an advertisement broadcast by the business, and the parody or satire of
the advertisement is being used to criticise that
business or point out errors
or misrepresentations in its advertisement. Whether adbusting qualifies as
‘fair
dealing’ would be a matter for the courts to determine on a case-by-case
basis.
What about other social and political commentary?
- We
have heard that a related issue for some artists is the lack of any exception in
the Copyright Act which would allow them a limited
right to include someone
else’s copyright protected work if they are making a new work, and the
inclusion of the copyright
protected work is necessary as a social or political
reference point (rather than being necessary for the purposes of parody or
satire).
39
|
What do problems (or benefits) arising from the Copyright Act not having an
express exception for parody and satire? What about the
absence of an exception
for caricature and pastiche?
|
154 The original explanatory memorandum to the
amendment further explains that this format benefits users by providing a
flexible exception
that allows the Act to respond better to rapidly changing
technology through judicial consideration and application.
155 In 1994, the United States Supreme Court held in Campbell v
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. that parody may be
considered a fair use under section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act, and
that the commercial character of song parody alone does not create a presumption
against a finding of fair use.
Use of quotations
- Section
42 permits the use of quotations or extracts for the purpose of criticism and
review, without requiring permission from copyright
owners if it is accompanied
by a sufficient acknowledgement. However, its use is restricted to a critical
context, such as in a short
quotation in an academic work.
- The
use of quotations is permitted under US and UK copyright law.156 We
have heard that presentations given in the US or the UK relying on fair use or
the quotation exception cannot be subsequently
shared with a New Zealand
audience without editing out third party content to the detriment of the
lecture.
40
|
What problems (or benefit) are there with the use of quotations or extracts
taken from copyright works? What changes, if any, should
be considered?
|
Section 2 – Exceptions for libraries and archives
Current situation
- The
Copyright Act provides a number of exceptions to facilitate the functions
of
not-for-profit libraries and archives. The purposes of these exceptions are to
allow these libraries and archives to:
- supply copies of
works to users for the purposes of research and private study
- obtain copies of
works from other libraries that they cannot otherwise obtain
- copy works
within their collections for preservation and replacement purposes
- communicate
works in digital form to authenticated users.157
- Libraries
and archives use content themselves and facilitate its use by others. They
collect, preserve and make available works for
the public good, providing an
important resource for creators.
The context for considering exceptions for libraries and
archives
- A
number of trends are affecting the way libraries and archives are expected to
operate. These include:
- the rapid shift
to digital technology for storing and imparting information and knowledge
- a growing demand
for physical content in the collections of libraries and archives
to
156 Section 30 (1) (A) of UK Copyrights, Designs
and Patents 1988 and section 107 of the US Copyright Act of 1976.
157 An authenticated user is a person who:
- has a legitimate
right to use the services of the library or archive
- can access the
work in digital form through a verification process that identifies the person
as someone who entitled to access the
work in digital
form.
be digitised and made publicly accessible online
- a growing
quantity of content that is being produced and published exclusively in digital
format.
Possible issues with the exceptions for libraries and
archives
- We
have heard that the exceptions for libraries and archives:
- are unclear and
confusing to apply
- hinder, or do
not facilitate, mass digitalisation projects
- do not allow
copying for collection management purposes
- do not
facilitate collecting and making available content ‘born’
digital
- cannot be used
by museums and galleries.
Testing whether the exceptions are unclear and confusing to
apply
- Librarians
have told us that the current library and archives exceptions are unclear and
confusing to apply because of the uncertainty
around their scope and use. This
could potentially lead to:
- users being
unable to be supplied copies of works for research and private study
- libraries and
archives being prevented from supplying copies of works to other libraries or
from copying for the purposes of preserving
or replacing items within their
collections.
41
|
Do you have any specific examples of where the uncertainty about the
exceptions for libraries and archives has resulted in undesirable
outcomes?
Please be specific about the situation, why this caused a problem and who it
caused a problem for.
|
42
|
Does the Copyright Act provide enough flexibility for libraries and
archives to copy, archive and make available to the public digital
content
published over the internet? What are the problems with (or benefits arising
from) this flexibility or lack of flexibility?
What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Mass digitisation projects
- Libraries
and archives have told us that the current exceptions inhibit their ability to
meet the growing demand to convert physical
content to digital form and make it
publically available over the internet.
- Libraries
and archives hold a wide range of content within their collections, including
many unpublished works. We have heard that
orphan works are particularly
problematic for the sector. 158 Digitisation projects can be
constrained by the need to identify and trace copyright owners for permission to
copy the content into
a digital format and make it available over the
internet.
158 Orphan works and the problems they create are
discussed from paragraph 465 in the
transactions section.
- A
further concern is that current exceptions may also be unnecessarily limiting
people’s access to knowledge because the exceptions
focus on providing
digital copies at a physical location.
- We
have heard that libraries and archives want to be able to copy more of their
collections, including unpublished works into digital
format, and to make those
copies available to the public over the internet. Furthermore, they want to:
- give the public
better access to works in their collection
- allow people to
pin, bookmark and cache copies
- allow more than
one person at a time to view a work.
- We
have also heard that current exceptions are too restrictive and that libraries
and archives need greater flexibility to be able
to copy works into digital
form, including for preservation purposes, without being unduly limited to the
condition that the work
is at risk of loss, damage or
destruction.159
43
|
Does the Copyright Act provide enough flexibility for libraries and
archives to facilitate mass digitisation projects and make copies
of physical
works in digital format more widely available to the public? What are the
problems with (or benefits arising from) this
flexibility or lack of
flexibility? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Copying for collection management purposes
- Making
thumbnail images, especially of artistic works, for cataloguing purposes is an
example of copying for collection management
and administration. Although we
have heard that these catalogues are typically only accessible internally by
staff, the Copyright
Act requires libraries and archives to seek permission from
the copyright owner before they can create them for collection management
and
administration purposes. It is not clear that this sort of copying and
cataloguing collections for internal use by libraries
and archives is harmful to
copyright owners.
44
|
Does the Copyright Act provide enough flexibility for libraries and
archives to make copies of copyright works within their collections
for
collection management and administration without the copyright holder’s
permission? What are the problems with (or benefits
arising from) this
flexibility or lack of flexibility? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Collecting and publishing content ‘born digital’
- We
have heard that the exceptions only target the digitisation of physical content
already held by the libraries and archives and
do not take proper account of the
vast amount of content that was created exclusively in digital form and only
published online (‘born
digital’).
- Collecting
and archiving content born digital is likely to be just as important for the
documentary heritage of New Zealand as collecting
and archiving content that was
published in physical form (eg in books and newspapers). We have heard that
libraries and archives
159 See section 5 (3)(a) of the Copyright Act.
want to be able to collect, preserve and make available to the public digital
content published online to ensure New Zealand’s
documentary heritage is
preserved.
- We
have also heard how the National Library copies websites on a regular basis as
part of the legal deposit process160 by:
- selectively
copying websites identified by library staff as being of ‘high
value’
- copying whole
domains, which is largely an automated process that captures an entire domain,
such as the .nz url, in its entirety.
- The
National Library makes the copied websites available to the public to access
online. These acts are permitted under section 66
of the Copyright Act, which
exempt acts done under a statutory authority.
- We
understand that most of the copying and publishing of websites by the National
Library occurs without the knowledge or permission
of the website owners. The
act of making the material copied from websites as part of the legal deposit
process available to the
public could be having a detrimental impact on
copyright owners and undermining their exclusive rights to authorise when their
material
may be copied and made available to the public.
45
|
What are the problems with (or benefits arising from) the flexibility given
to libraries and archives to copy and make available content
published online?
What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Should the exceptions also apply across the GLAM sector (to
museums and galleries also)?
- Museums
and galleries have a similar purpose and role to libraries and archives in
collecting, preserving and making content available
for the benefit of the
public. Like libraries and galleries, many are also not-for-profit institutions.
However, the current exceptions
do not apply to them.
46
|
What are the problems with (or benefits arising from) excluding museums and
galleries from the libraries and archives exceptions?
What changes (if any)
should be considered?
|
160 The copying of websites is authorised under
National Library Requirement (Electronic Documents) Notice 2006 issued
under the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o
Aotearoa) Act 2003.
Section 3 – Exceptions for education
Introduction
- The
Copyright Act includes specific exceptions that allow certain uses for the
purpose of education.161 The exceptions are intended to allow the use
of copyright works to facilitate teaching, learning and the creation of new
knowledge,
while having due regard to the rights of copyright
owners.
- Some
examples of how educational institutions can use copyright works without
permission from the rights holder include:
- a whole copy of
a literary work can be made by a teacher and used during a lesson
- a sound
recording can be played to students in class
- copies of a
literary work can be made and distributed to students as long as the extract
copied does not exceed more than 3% or 3
pages (whichever is greater)
- copies of
websites (and the copyright works contained within them) can be stored and used
for educational purposes.
- The
exceptions enable the use of copyright works only to the extent that the
exceptions permit. If educational establishments or others
want greater use they
must seek a licence (and pay the licence fee).162 The exceptions
allow for a certain amount of copying to be done at no cost, but some of the
exceptions are intended to encourage
copyright owners to make licensing schemes
available to educational establishments. For example, section 45 only permits
copying
of films and sound recordings if no licensing schemes are available for
such copying. In New Zealand, collective licences for educational
establishments
are issued by three main Collective Management Organisations.163
- It
is up to individual educational institutions or users to decide whether to get a
licence for uses broader than the exceptions allow,
like copying of a larger
proportion of works or sharing works with students online. The practice of
educational institutions and
users differs widely across the
country.
Possible issues
- We
have heard that the education exceptions:
- are framed for a
traditional classroom environment and do not take into account current teaching
practices and modern technology
- create
unnecessary distinctions based on the technology
used
161 Sections 44-49 of the Copyright Act.
162 Apart from section 48 on copying of communication works, which
does not apply if licences are available.
163 Copyright Licensing New Zealand (CLNZ) (authors and
publishers), OneMusic (songwriters, record companies and
artists), Screenrights (television, radio and online content). For a more
detailed discussion of the role and operation of CMOs in
New Zealand’s
‘copyright system’ see paragraphs
445 to 453.
- do not cover
copyright works being communicated by teachers to students over the
internet
- may be too broad
in some cases
- may be too
narrow in some cases
- are not well
understood by those in the teaching profession.
Taking into account current teaching practices and
technology
- The
use of multimedia resources that incorporate different types of copyright works
is playing an increasing role in teaching. Students
are encouraged to use apps
as part of their learning, enabling them to create their own works, re-use and
adapt other people’s
works and share them with classmates and teachers. We
hear that students are often expected to work collaboratively as part of their
homework, for example on a project to create a film, or design a 3-D virtual
reality game. This often involves using online resources.
- Teachers
are using a wide variety of tools to teach. They can encourage interaction and
engagement through use of technologies like
interactive whiteboards, projectors
and computer screens. Teachers can use communication technologies like video
conferencing, Skype,
and Google Hangouts to interact with other schools, or
experts in a field. This can be done, for example, to learn languages or to
stream school assemblies.
- Educational
establishments increasingly offer teaching and resources online, using Learning
Management Systems (LMS). This allows
access to course readings, slide
presentations, past exam papers, interactive content and other resources to
registered students.
Many tertiary institutions facilitate remote learning by
the recording of lectures. This makes distance learning easier, enables
students
to catch up on missed lectures or review lectures if English is not their first
language, and helps students with disabilities.
Potential issues with reprographic and non-reprographic
copying
- Section
44(1) allows a teacher to make a single copy of a whole work or part of a work
by reprographic means if it is for use in a
lesson at an educational
establishment164 or in preparing for a lesson.
‘Reprographic’ refers to a process for making facsimile copies, or
which uses an appliance
to make copies and includes copying by electronic means
(but excludes making of a film or sound recording of a work). Only one copy
can
be made on one occasion.
- Section
44(2) allows a teacher or student to copy the whole or part of a work (but not
by reprographic process).165 More than one copy can be made at any
one time.166
- Both
sections apply to literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works and the
typographical arrangement of a published edition.
- It
is not clear that distinguishing between reprographic and non-reprographic
copying is still justified. For example, a teacher may
copy an extract of a work
from an online resource into a slide show. This would be permitted by section
44(1). If the pupils being
taught then made
164 ‘Educational establishments’ are
defined in section 2 of the Act. They include schools to which the Education
Act 1989 or the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975
apply as well as other institutions established through the Education Act
1964 or Education Act 1989.
165 Either before, during, or after a lesson (eg copying onto a
blackboard, writing out as part of homework)
166 This exception is not restricted to educational
establishments.
non-reprographic copies, this is permitted by section 44(2). It is not clear how
this differs from distributing copies of the slide
show directly to the pupils.
The effect in both cases is the same: the pupils end up with copies of the
extract.
Communicating works in digital form
- Section
47 allows students or staff to perform a literary, dramatic or musical work in
front of other students and staff in the course
of activities at an educational
establishment. Playing or showing a sound recording, film or communication work
(communicating it
in a digital format) at an educational establishment for the
purpose of instruction is also permitted.167
- Licences
are available that permit copying and communication of a greater proportion of
the copyright work.168 However, we have heard that on occasions a
lesson or lecture can include material not covered by licence agreements (eg
printed sheet
music). Obtaining permission of the rights holder for the use can
be administratively burdensome for an educational establishment.
- The
exception does not apply to a teacher communicating the works to students over
the internet. Licences are currently available
that permit the communication of
some sound recordings, films and communication works online. However, we have
heard that not all
works are available through licences so can only be used in
the classroom setting. For example, where a DVD is not covered by a licence,
it
cannot be featured in a lecture that students access online though it can be
played in the lecture itself. We have heard that
content may have to be deleted
from the version made available to students online because some institutions
find it problematic to
get the necessary permissions. Universities have noted
that watching the full lecture online is particularly important for those
with
disabilities, who are less familiar with English, or who work alongside their
studies.
- When
students work on collaborative assignments, we have heard that the software
provided by educational establishments (which is
often covered by licences
permitting
copying of works) is not always students’ preferred method. Establishments
are concerned that students may infringe copyright
through the uploading and
sharing of non-licensed content or that students may share licensed content
externally (to non-authenticated
users) as part of a project.
- Tertiary
establishments have said they would like to take advantage of opportunities for
the use of new research methods such as data
mining that copy and use
third-party material in non-consumptive, transformative ways. Traditionally,
this work is done by researchers
by hand but the use of computers to analyse
material can involve the creation of multiple copies of a work as part of the
process.
People have told us there is uncertainty about whether this is
permitted under the Copyright Act at
present.169
47
|
Does the Copyright Act provide enough flexibility to enable teachers,
pupils and educational institutions to benefit from new technologies?
What are
the problems with (or benefits arising from) this flexibility or lack of
flexibility? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
167 The performance, playing or showing of works to
parents and guardians is not included in this exception.
168 For example, the CLNZ licence allows a school to copy up to
10% of a book or one chapter of a book and share those copies via CD/DVD,
email
and intranet.
169 For a fuller discussion of text and data mining see paragraphs
[x to y].
Are the exceptions too broad?
- Some
stakeholders have expressed concern that section 44(1) is too broad. As outlined
in paragraph 341, this section allows a
teacher to make a single copy of a whole published edition for the purpose of
educational instruction. We have
heard that making a whole copy of a published
edition can undermine the market of educational publishers.170
- Section
49 provides that anything done for the purposes of examination (whether setting
the questions, communicating the questions
to candidates, or answering the
questions) does not infringe copyright. This is not restricted to educational
establishments and
applies to all works.
- This
exception is seen by some to be too broadly defined. It places no restriction on
the action taken with a work or on the types
of work171 covered by
the exception. We have also heard that, in contrast to the other exceptions, it
does not limit the quantity of copies,
or the amount being copied. Nor does it
clarify whether it applies to internal or external
examinations.
48
|
Are the education exceptions too wide? What are the problems with (or
benefits arising from) this? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Are the exceptions too narrow?
- We
have heard that the detailed nature of the education exceptions works well for
rights holders because it provides certainty about
what can and cannot be copied
under the Copyright Act.
- However,
it is possible that in some instances the level of detail in the education
exceptions is difficult or restrictive to follow
in practice. For example,
section 44(6) states that an educational establishment cannot copy the same work
again within 14 days of
making the copy.172 We have heard from
copyright owners and educational institutions that this rule is hard to
implement and not easily understood.
- Section
44A allows an educational establishment to store a copy of a work for
educational purposes, and provide registered students
the ability to access that
work subject to some restrictions:
- The work must be
in a separate frame/identifier.
- The author (if
known) and source must be identified.
- The name of the
educational establishment and the date the work was stored should be
included.
- If the material
becomes no longer relevant to the course, the material should
be
170 New Zealand has 30 educational publishers, these
publishers generate the majority of their revenue from within New Zealand (http://www.publishers.org.nz/educational-publishing/).
171 These are: Literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works,
sound recordings, films, communication works and
typographical arrangements.
172 Under licence, repeat copies can be made within 14 days,
provided that such copying is not made by or on behalf of the
same staff member for the same paper, unit or module of a course of study.
This restriction on repeat copying does not limit repeat
access to material
copied electronically and supplied to students under the licence.
deleted.
This applies to works made available online (either on a website or through
another electronic retrieval system).
- We
have heard from tertiary institutions that restricting online materials to
‘authenticated users’ restricts their ability
to promote their
establishment to potential students or engagement with the local
community.
- We
have also heard that universities would like theses submitted by their students
to be made available online. However, some theses
may include content whose
copyright is owned by third parties. In many cases the authors of the theses
will have relied on the section
49 exception rather than seeking permission from
the copyright owner. Making copies of these theses available online may
therefore
risk copyright infringement. Another issue is whether section 49
allows universities to make their students’ theses available
online
without the students’ permission.
49
|
Are the education exceptions too narrow? What are the problems with (or
benefits arising from) this? What changes (if any) should
be considered?
|
Education sector’s understanding of copyright
- The
Ministry of Education, licensing agencies and the NZ School Trustees’
Association work to help schools understand their
copyright obligations and
responsibilities. However, we have heard that what can or cannot be done with
copyright works is not always
well understood amongst educational establishments
due to the complexity of the copyright system.
- A
teacher in a school may have access to a wide range of material from a number of
sources, all with their own copyright obligations.
For example, they may use
Ministry of Education resources173, resources they have created, or
third party resources. Some schools have their own internal policies for sharing
resources developed
by teachers with students and sometimes with other schools.
Depending on licensing arrangements and which exceptions apply, there
could be a
risk of infringement if third party material is used.
- Universities
have told us that as both consumers of copyright works and creators of copyright
works they must invest significant time
and resources into ensuring copyright
compliance.
50
|
Is copyright well understood in the education sector? What problems does
this create (if any)?
|
173 Ministry of Education resources may be protected
by Crown copyright, or are available under Creative Commons licenses, or the
rights
may be owned by third parties.
Section 4 – Exceptions relating to the use of particular
categories of works
Context
- The
Copyright Act provides for a number of exceptions for which the use of a
particular work does not infringe copyright. In this
section we explore the
issues raised by some of the exceptions,174 including:
- the free playing
or showing of some works
- format shifting
of sound recordings
- recording for
the purposes of time-shifting
- retransmission
of broadcast content exceptions relating to computer
programmes.
Free public playing exceptions
- Sections
81, 87 and 87A of the Copyright Act provide exceptions that allow for the free
public playing of sound recordings and communication
works protected by
copyright.175 These exceptions affect:
- clubs, societies
and other organisations that play sound recordings
- businesses such
as cafes, bars, gyms and hair dressing salons (that do not charge for
admission), when they play the radio, television,
or stream music or video to
the public.
Exception for clubs societies and other organisations to play
sound recordings (section 81)
- Section
81 of the Copyright Act provides that not-for-profit clubs, societies or
organisations with charitable, religious, educational
or social welfare purposes
can play sound recordings without infringing copyright, as long as the proceeds
of any charge for admission
to the place (where the recording is to be heard)
are applied solely to the purposes of the organisation.176
- This
exception only applies to sound recordings, and not any other works contained in
the recording like the lyrics (ie the literary
work) and the musical score (ie
the musical work) of a song. This means that a club or society still needs
additional permissions
(ie licences) to play a sound recording in reliance of
this exception because the exception does not extend to these underlying
works.
174 There are other exceptions provided for in the
Act that are not fully discussed in this document. See paragraph 396 under ‘Other communication work
exceptions’.
175 Sections 186, 188 and 188A of the Copyright Act provide
exceptions to performers’ rights under the same
circumstances.
Exceptions for the free public playing or showing of communication works
(sections 87 and 87A)
- Sections
87 and 87A provide general exceptions for playing and showing communication
works. Under sections 87 and 87A the free public
playing or showing of a
communication work does not infringe copyright in the communication work or any
accompanying sound recording
or film in the communication work. The exceptions
are designed so that recipients of communication works are not required to get
authorisation to freely play or show the works in public if the copyright owners
have already made their works freely available to
the public or have already
charged a fee to receive the works. For example:
- Copyright owners
receive royalties from radio stations when their sound recordings are played.
The exceptions provide that a business
such as a store that plays the radio is
not required to pay licence fees in respect of the radio broadcaster or any
sound recording
that is played in public by reception of the broadcast.
- A bar with a Sky
TV subscription already pays for a Sky TV commercial licence to play music video
clips. The bar is not required to
obtain a separate licence from the copyright
owners to play and show the sound recordings and films shown on
TV.
- Sections
87 and 87A apply to communications works freely played or shown in the following
ways:
|
Free-to-air communications works (eg TVNZ programmes or NZ radio
stations)
|
Subscription or pay-per-view communications works
|
Live transmissions
|
Section 87A
|
Section 87
|
Recorded
|
Section 87
|
Section 87
|
- A
communication work is played or shown ‘freely’ for the purpose of
both these sections if the audience does not pay for
admission and the venue
does not sell goods and services at prices that are attributable to the works.
However, section 87 does not
apply to venues providing temporary accommodation
such as hotels, motels and camping grounds (because it treats these venues as
places
people have paid to gain admission to). Those venues can therefore only
rely on the section 87A exception (or fully license the playing
of communication
works described in section 87).
Potential issues with the free public playing exception
Sound recordings and films vs underlying works
- The
exceptions prevent entities from having to pay licence fees for sound
recordings, films and communication works, but do not prevent
infringement of
any copyright in the underlying works (eg lyrics and musical work for a sound
recording). This generally means that,
in order for the public playing to be
lawful:
- not-for-profit
organisations playing a sound recording (via CD, DVD or MP3) according to the
exception in section 81 still need to
pay licence fees for those underlying
works
- entities freely
playing communication works (via TV, radio or internet) according to the
exceptions in sections 87 and 87A, while
also exempted from paying licence fees
for the accompany sound recordings or films, still need to pay fees for the
underlying
works.
- The
policy rationale for not extending these exceptions to copyright in the
underlying works is unclear.
Technology platforms
- The
free public playing exceptions are structured so that whether entities are
required to pay licence fees for the sound recordings
and films depends on the
type of technology platform used (notably, whether or not the works are
communication works).
- Sections
87 and 87A only apply to communication works (preventing infringement of
copyright in both the communication work and the
accompanying sound recordings
or films). Entities that freely play or show, for example, internet music
services or TV in public
are not required to pay licence fees to sound recording
and film copyright owners. However, if the same entities instead freely play
or
show CDs, DVDs or MP3s in public, they are required to pay fees to sound
recording and film copyright owners.
- Almost
the reverse is the case for not-for-profit entities, because section 81 applies
only to sound recordings. Regardless of whether
they charge admission,
not-for-profit entities are not required to pay licence fees to sound recording
copyright owners in order
to play, for example, CDs or MP3s. However, if they
instead play internet music services (which are considered communication works,
not sound recordings) and charge admission, they are required to pay licence
fees to sound recording copyright owners.
- These
differences are inconsistent with the principle of technology neutrality. There
is no clear policy rationale for distinguishing
in these exceptions between
technology platforms.
Not-for-profit entities and films
- Because
section 81 does not apply to films, to show films to the public not-for-profit
entities need to pay licence fees to all the
copyright owners. For example, a
charity which held a fundraiser screening of a movie would need to obtain a
licence.
51
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the free public playing
exceptions in sections 81, 87 and 87 A of the Copyright Act? What
changes (if
any) should be considered?
|
Format-shifting of sound recordings
- Section
81A enables people who own legitimately acquired copies of sound recordings (and
any underlying literary or musical works
contained in them) to make copies of
them (ie format-shift) for their personal or household use. 177 The
exception enables, for example, the
177 The exception only applies if:
- the sound
recording is not a communication work
- the sound
recording is not borrowed or hired
- the copy is made
by the owner, for personal or household use
- the sound
recording is not made from an infringing copy
- no more than a
copy is made
- the owner
retains ownership of the sound recording and copies.
owner of a music CD to copy the music on to their portable MP3 player or
smartphone for personal or household consumption without
infringing
copyright.
- The
rationale for this exception is that once a person has purchased recorded music,
they should be free to ‘format-shift’
that recording, rather than
having to pay for the same music again.
Potential issues with the format-shifting exception
- The
exception was created before portable devices with video playing capabilities,
like smartphones, became common. It only applies
to sound recordings. Format
shifting of video files for personal use continues to be an infringement of
copyright.178
- The
combination of technological changes since 2008, the speed and reliability of
broadband connections, and the development of cloud
services suggest that the
format-shifting exception needs to be reviewed in light of current consumer
practices.
- The
format-shifting exception is tied closely to the use of physical devices, like
MP3 players or smartphones, to play the format-shifted
copies of sound
recordings. Currently, a number of services allow users to upload their sound
recordings to the cloud, and then provide
access to those recordings from any
device through the internet. Users are also able to save sound recordings to the
cloud. Neither
of these examples is permissible under the current
format-shifting exception.
52
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way the format shifting
exception currently operates? What changes (if any) should
be considered?
|
Recording for the purposes of time-shifting
- Section
84 of the Act allows people to ‘time-shift’ programmes included in a
communication work (or any underlying work
included in it) for the purposes of
personal consumption at a more convenient time if:
- it is for
personal use
- the only purpose
is to view or listen at a more convenient time
- the recording is
not made from an on-demand service
- the person has
lawful access to the communication work at the time of making the
recording.
- The
effect of the exception is that the widespread practice of consumers recording
TV programmes on VCRs or a personal video recorder
(PVR) was no longer copyright
infringement.
178 When reporting on the Copyright (New
Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill in 2007, the
Commerce Committee noted that some submitters believed that the provision should
not be limited to sound recordings only.
The Committee disagreed, saying that
while format shifting of sound recordings was widespread, format-shifting of
other works was
not.
- The
term ‘programme’ is not defined in the Copyright Act but the example
provided in the Act mentions a movie screened
on TV, and a streamed internet
audio service. The exception does not allow people to retain the recording
‘for any longer than
is reasonably necessary’.
53
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way the time shifting
exception operates? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Reception and retransmission of broadcast content
- Section
88 of the Copyright Act permits the reception and immediate retransmission of a
broadcast by a cable programme service in
certain circumstances, without
infringing either the copyright in the broadcast or the copyright in any
underlying work contained
in it. The broadcast must be made for reception in the
area where the cable programme services is provided, and must not be a satellite
transmission or an encrypted transmission.
- The
exception allows a cable operator primarily offering pay television to include
free-to-air channels in its offerings, without
requiring a licence from the
free-to-air channel operators.
- The
exception does not apply if licences authorising the retransmission are
available to the cable service provider under a licensing
scheme, and the
provider is aware of this.
Potential issues with the reception and retransmission
exception
- The
objective of section 88 was to encourage greater competition and investment in
cable networks and their associated service industry
and thereby encourage new
investment in competitive telecommunications infrastructure. A secondary
objective was to improve the quality
of television reception in areas where
reception was poor.179
- We
understand that cable networks in New Zealand have not expanded in coverage for
many years. It does not appear likely they will
expand in the future. In
addition, media convergence has meant that consumers are increasingly streaming
media over the internet
on demand. Traditional broadcasting is being blended
with content from the internet, enabling products such as Freeview Plus and
internet-enabled Sky boxes.
- A
similar provision in the UK’s Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988
was recently repealed.
54
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the reception and retransmission
exception? What alternatives (if any) should be considered?
|
179 The former Ministry of Economic
Development’s digital copyright review which commenced in 2001 considered
whether section 88
should be retained. The review concluded that overall, no
evidence was presented to suggest the incentives provided by the exception
continue to be required to encourage investment in the cable industry. When the
Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill
was introduced to Parliament it included repeal of this section, but the
section was subsequently reintroduced at the Select Committee
stage.
Other communication work exceptions
- The
Copyright Act allows for a number of other exceptions relating to particular
types of works, including:
- recording for
the purposes of maintaining standards in programmes (section 82)
- recording for
the purposes of complaining (section 83)
- incidental
recording for the purposes of communication (section 85)
- provision of
subtitled copies of communication works (section 89)
- recording for
archival purposes (section 90)
- recording by
media monitors (section 91).
- For
the sake of brevity we have not detailed these exceptions here but we would be
interested to understand any issues you have identified
in relation to
them.
55
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the other exceptions that relate
to communication works? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Exceptions relating to computer programs
- The
Copyright Act contains a number of exceptions relating to computer programs.
With the exception of section 80 (relating to back-up
copies of a computer
programme), these exceptions were inserted by the changes made to the Copyright
Act in 2008.
- The
exceptions enable common activities in relation to computer programs undertaken
by consumers and programmers to be lawful, including:
- Backing up
computer programs. This allows lawfully obtained programs to be copied for
the purposes of back-up in the event the program is lost, destroyed or rendered
unusable.
- Decompiling
computer programs.180 This allows a lawful user of a computer
program to decompile it for the purposes of creating an independent,
interoperable program
that can be operated with the program or another
program.
- Copying or
adapting for lawful use. This allows a lawful user of a computer program to
copy and adapt it insofar as it is necessary for continued use (eg to correct
an
error).
- Observing,
studying or testing of a computer program. This allows users to observe,
study or test programs in order to determine the ideas and principles that
underlie the program.
56
|
Are the exceptions relating to computer programmes working effectively in
practice? Are any other specific exceptions required to
facilitate desirable
uses of computer programs?
|
180 The Act defines ‘decompile’ to mean
“convert a computer program expressed in a low level language into a
version
expressed in a higher level language”. Computer programs are
created at a high level with source code, which is then ‘compiled’
into a low level executable file a user can run. Decompiliation attempts to
reverse engineer this process, so an executable file
can be transformed into
source code.
Exception for artistic works on public display (Section
73)
- Section
73 of the Copyright Act provides an exception to copyright infringement which
applies to the artistic works on permanent public
display like buildings,
sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship. It states
that copyright in these works
is not infringed by making two-dimensional copies
of the works by:
- making a drawing
or painting of the works
- taking a
photograph, or a film or video of the works
- communicating a
visual image of the works to the public.181
- For
example, if a sculpture is on permanent display in a public space, you do not
need permission from the copyright owner before
taking a photograph of it. You
can also distribute or sell copies of the photograph to the public without
permission.
Is there a problem with section 73?
- We
have heard that section 73 might be problematic in three ways:
- the wording is
unclear as it does not explicitly include underlying works
- the exception,
as currently worded, is unfair to copyright owners
- it is unclear
what is meant by ‘premises open to the public’, for example, whether
it includes places that members of
the public have to pay to
enter.
Lack of clarity of wording
- Section
73 applies to the making of two-dimensional copies of three- dimensional
artistic works. This sort of copying usually involves
indirect copying of any
underlying works, like design drawings, that were used to make the
three-dimensional artistic work.
- Although
section 73 does not mention any underlying works, this issue was considered in a
2007 High Court decision.182 The case involved a clothing company
which had arranged for the manufacture and sale of tee-shirts carrying on the
front a photograph
of a sculpture on display in a public park in Auckland. The
copyright owner argued that this breached his copyright in the sculpture
by
indirectly copying the underlying works used to make the sculpture. He also
claimed that because section 73 made no mention of
‘commercial
copying’ that it should only apply to copying for personal use and not
copying for commercial gain.
- The
High Court held that section 73 must apply to the works underlying the works
specifically mentioned in section 73. If it did not,
this would be contrary to
the clear policy expressed in the words of section 73:
181 Section 20 of the predecessor of the Copyright
Act 1994, the Copyright Act 1962, contained a similar exception. Section
62 of the United Kingdom’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and
sections 65 and 68 of the Australian Copyright Act have exceptions
similar to section 73.
182 Radfords v Hallensteins Bros Ltd, [2007] NZHC 1654, 22
February 2007.
“[section 73] sets out to allow members of the public, including
players in the market, to copy in two-dimensions sculptures
permanently in the
public domain and even for profit; and it does so by setting aside any copyright
in the work that the author might
otherwise enjoy. However s 73 is interpreted,
that clear policy is not for compromise.”183
- It
may be useful to clarify that section 73 applies to works underlying works on
permanent public display. This would avoid any doubt
about the scope of the
exception.
Is section 73 unfair to copyright owners?
- In
the court case referred to above, the copyright owner argued against the broad
interpretation of section 73 that was eventually
adopted by the Court. He had
made a limited number of one-tenth scale bronze castings of the sculpture and
argued that sale of
the defendant’s tee-shirts had reduced the value of those castings which
he had not yet sold.
- This
raises the question of whether the section 73 exception is fair to the owners of
copyright in the artistic works covered by section
73. Some might argue that it
is only fair and reasonable for copyright owners to make a return on sales of
two-dimensional copies
of their works. Others should not be able to make a
profit from these copies without the permission of the copyright
owner.
- On
the other hand, copyright owners who allow their works to be placed on permanent
public display do so in the knowledge of the section
73 exception. If they do
not wish others to profit from the sale of two-dimensional copies of their works
without their permission,
copyright owners can refuse to allow their work to be
placed on permanent public display in the first place.
57
|
Do you think that section 73 should be amended to make it clear that the
exception applies to the works underlying the works specified
in section 73(1)?
And should the exception be limited to copies made for personal and private use,
with copies made for commercial
gain being excluded? Why?
|
183 Supra at [35].
Section 5 – Contracting out of the exceptions
- The
exceptions discussed in the preceding sections enable people to use a copyright
work for the specified purposes without permission
from the copyright owner.
However, the Copyright Act is largely silent on whether copyright owners can
exclude or modify a person’s
ability to use these exceptions through
contract. It is not expressly prohibited by the Copyright Act, other than in
relation to
the exceptions relating to copying of computer programs under
certain circumstances.184
- The
Copyright Act appears to acknowledge the ability of copyright owners to use
contract law to prevent users taking advantage of
the exceptions. For example,
the format-shifting exception in section 81A expressly provides that the
exception does not apply if
a contract specifies the circumstances in which the
sound recording may be copied.
- Website
terms and conditions commonly take the form of a ‘browse-wrap’
agreement, stating that the terms and conditions
are deemed to be accepted when
the user accesses and uses the website. Similarly, terms and conditions on the
downloading and use
of computer programs can be imposed on users under
‘click-wrap’ agreements (for example, where users are required to
tick a box stating that they agree to the terms and conditions before they
download and use software). The enforceability of browse-wrap
agreements (and
click-wrap agreements) has not been considered by courts in either New Zealand
or Australia. However, click-wrap
agreements have been upheld in the US and the
EU.
- The
Australian Law Reform Commissioned in its report on Copyright and the Digital
Economy discussed imposing limits on contracting
out of the copyright exceptions
in Australia.185 The Commission recommended that:
- the Copyright
Act be amended to provide that an agreement, or a provision of an agreement,
that excludes or limits, or has the effect
of excluding or limiting, the
operation of certain copyright exceptions has no effect
- these
limitations on contracting out apply to:
- the
exceptions for libraries and archives
- fair
use or fair dealing exceptions, to the extent these exceptions apply to the use
of material for research or study, criticism
or review, parody or satire,
reporting news, or quotation.
58
|
What problems (or benefits) are there in allowing copyright owners to limit
or modify a person’s ability to use the existing
exceptions through
contract? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
184 Section 80D of the Copyright Act.
185 https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/17-contracting-out/limitations-contracting-out
Section 6 – Internet service provider liability
Current
situation
- Sections
92B to 92E186 (introduced by the Copyright (New Technologies)
Amendment Act 2008) concern the liability of Internet Service Providers
(ISPs). ISPs are defined as a person who does either or both of the
following:
- offers the
transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online
communications, between or among points specified
by a user, of material of the
user’s choosing
- hosts material
on websites or other electronic retrieval systems that can be accessed by a
user.
- The
definition of an ISP captures many different types of organisations providing
various internet related services. These include
providers of connectivity
services such as broadband, ADSL, VDSL fibre, mobile data and Wi-Fi, social
media platforms, operators
of email systems and providers of electronic data
storage and retrieval systems. Businesses, schools, universities and libraries
providing online services for their staff, customers, students or users are
captured by the definition. Some businesses who fall
within the broad definition
of an ISP have themselves become content creators and
distributors.
- Sections
92B to 92E limit ISP liability (ie provide ‘safe harbours’)
where:
- users of the
ISP’s internet services infringe copyright
- the ISP stores
infringing material uploaded by one of its users
- the ISP stores a
temporary copy of infringing material (‘caching’).
- Without
these provisions ISPs could face liability for primary and secondary copyright
infringement (eg authorising the copying without
the copyright owner’s
permission, possessing or dealing with infringing copies and providing the means
for making infringing
copies).
- Limiting
ISPs’ liability is intended to facilitate the provision of
internet-related services at reasonable cost for consumers.
- The
protections provided by sections 92B to 92E of the Copyright Act are not
absolute. For example, 92B only protects ISPs from liability
if someone merely
uses their internet services for the purposes of infringement ‘without
more’. This means that if, for
example, an ISP takes action to encourage
its users or customers to infringe copyright this protection would no longer
apply. The
safe harbours do not prevent copyright owners from seeking injunctive
relief against the ISP for any infringement of copyright by
the ISP or a user of
their services.
186 There are also linkages between the provisions
examined here and the ‘three strikes’ copyright infringement regime
established
in 2011. See from paragraph 502
of the issues paper.
Potential issues with ISP liability
- There
have been significant technological and market developments since the Copyright
Act was last reviewed. The rise of streaming
has impacted how consumers interact
with material protected by copyright. Many consumers no longer purchase physical
or digital versions
of media but instead stream all the television, movies and
music they consume through on- demand platforms through the internet.
These
consumption patterns are predicted to increase.
- This
section looks at the following issues:
- whether the
definition of ‘ISP’ is appropriate
- types of content
hosts
- whether the safe
harbours adequately apply to modern content delivery mechanisms and discovery
tools
- protection for,
and value of, copyright works
- other possible
issues.
Is the definition of ISP appropriate?
- The
definition of ISP in the Copyright Act is extremely broad and wider than other
countries. For example, Australia’s safe
harbour regime protects only
commercial connectivity providers, not other entities providing internet-related
services such as content
hosting providers. The Australian Government is
currently considering whether to introduce a broader safe harbour regime to
increase
certainty for content hosts.
Types of content hosts
- There
are a large number of user-generated content (UGC) platforms like YouTube,
Instagram and Facebook (sometimes known as Web 2.0)
that rely on users uploading
material before the platforms distribute it to their users (as opposed to
traditional publishing or
broadcasting process where companies push content out
to consumers). These platforms also involve:
- giving users a
higher degree of choice than traditional publishing or broadcasting –
users can choose who to ‘follow’
rather than necessarily being
presented with a curated or edited list of content
- presenting users
with content that they think will appeal to them based on analytics of their
previous choices
- steering users
towards more profitable content.
- When
the ISP safe harbour provisions were introduced in the Copyright Act, these
large online UGC platforms had not fully emerged.
The ISP liability provisions
may need to be reviewed in light of the developing role of online platforms as
content distributors.
- We
have also heard that the ISP liability provisions reduce the incentive on ISPs
to help right holders stop
piracy.
59
|
What are problems (or benefits) with the ISP definition? What changes, if
any should be considered?
|
Should safe harbours apply to the providers of search tools?
- A
number of other countries explicitly protect providers of search tools (or
search engines) from copyright liability. It is unclear
whether providing a link
to infringing content is an infringement of copyright. See the discussion above
on linking to infringing
content in paragraphs 186 to 191.
60
|
Are there any problems (or benefit) with the absence of an explicit
exception for linking to copyright material and not having a safe
harbour for
providers of search tools (eg search engines)? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Protection for, and value of, copyright works, including the
licensing market
- There
has been considerable discussion, particularly overseas, regarding the
interaction between safe harbours for content hosts and
remuneration for
copyright owners. Some copyright owners say that our safe harbour regime makes
it harder for copyright owners to
protect their works.
- We
have also heard that it distorts the commercial relationship between online
platforms and copyright owners, allowing platforms
to pay low rates of
remuneration for content because they can rely on the backstop of the safe
harbour. It is not clear the extent
to which the safe harbour regime under the
Copyright Act impacts this issue, given the small size of the New Zealand
market.
61
|
Do the safe harbour provisions in the Copyright Act affect the commercial
relationship between online platforms and copyright owners?
Please be specific
about who is, and how they are, affected.
|
Other possible issues
- The
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘DMCA’) safe harbour regime
in the US, on which our notice and takedown system under section 92C is based,
is currently
undergoing a review. Some of the issues under consideration in that
review may be relevant to the safe harbours regime in the Copyright
Act. Issues
under consideration include:
- General
effectiveness of the safe harbour regime and how this has impacted on the growth
and development of online services.
- Overcoming the
‘whack-a-mole’ phenomenon – does the notice and takedown
regime sufficiently address the reappearance
of infringing material on hosting
websites?
- Should ISPs be
obliged to detect and delete all infringing copies of a work, not merely the
copy identified in a ‘takedown’
notice?
- The adequacy of
the notice and takedown regime to protect against fraudulent, abusive or
unfounded notices.
- The
effectiveness of the counter notifications for addressing false or misleading
assertions of infringement (the Copyright Act does
not explicitly provide a
counter notification procedure).
62
|
What other problems (or benefits) are there with the safe harbour regime
for internet service providers? What changes, if any, should
be
considered?
|
Part 6 – Transactions
Introduction
- As
discussed in Part 4 – Rights, the rights granted under the Copyright Act
are intended to give creators greater control over
the copying and distribution
of their works to increase their ability to earn revenue from their
works.
- This
Part discusses potential issues with how the Copyright Act enables copyright
owners to earn a return from their works by entering
into transactions that
involve giving their rights to others to use and/or exploit their
works.
The current situation
- There
are two types of transactions that copyright owners can enter into:
- those that
involve a transfer of their rights – ie a transfer of ownership
of one or more of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights (for example,
to copy or publish a work) to another person
- those
transactions that involve giving a licence to use or exploit their
rights– ie giving someone permission to do one of the things only
copyright owners have the right to do (for example, to copy or publish a
work).
- Enabling
creators, copyright owners and others to transfer and license rights in
copyright works efficiently and effectively supports
the development of markets
and facilitates the dissemination and use of creative
works.
How is copyright transferred?
- Copyright
can be transferred by assignment, by will or by operation of law.187
To be effective, transfers by assignment must be in writing and
signed.188
- A
copyright owner can transfer any or all of their exclusive rights to one person,
or may transfer different rights to different persons.
That transfer can also be
for part, but not the whole, period for which copyright can exist. For example a
copyright owner could
transfer the right to:
- publish189
a novel to one person (for example, a publisher) and the right to adapt it into
a movie to another (for example, a film studio)
- communicate a
film in a television broadcast to one person (for example, a broadcaster) and
the right to communicate it by making
it available on the internet to another
(for
187 Sections 113-119 of the Copyright Act. Examples
of copyright passing by operation of law include a copyright owner whose
property
becomes vested in the Official Assignee on bankruptcy or the property
of a copyright owner who dies without a will passing to his
or her heirs.
188 Part 4 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 and
the definition of ‘writing’ in the Copyright Act
enable the requirements for an assignment to be in writing and signed to be
met electronically.
189 Or, in the language of the Copyright Act, issue copies of the
novel to the public.
example, an internet start-up)
- show a film in
public for only a six-month period.
- A
copyright owner may also transfer future copyright as if it were then in
existence. For example, an author may transfer their rights
that they would get
over a novel that they have not yet written to a
publisher.
- A
condition of the transfer of copyright is normally that the person receiving the
right pays a fee to the copyright owner.
Copyright licensing
- Copyright
owners can license another person to do any of the exclusive rights granted
under the Copyright Act. Similar to transfer
of copyright discussed above,
copyright owners can grant licences over any of their rights and for part, but
not the whole, period
for which copyright can exist.
- For
example, a copyright owner could license the right to:
- publish a novel
to one person (for example, a publisher) and the right to adapt it into a movie
to another (for example, a film studio)
- communicate a
film to a television broadcaster and license the right to communicate the film
on the internet to another person (like
an internet streaming service
provider)
- show a film in
public for a only six-month period.
- A
condition of copyright licences is normally that the person using the work pays
a fee to the copyright owner. The fee could, for
example, be a one-off amount
for using the work over a period of time (eg an annual licensing fee) or a fee
based upon the number
of times the work is copied or played in
public.
How can copyright owners license their works?
- There
are three common ways copyright owners license their works:
- by negotiating
directly with the users themselves
- by using an
intermediary, such as copyright management organisation
- by using open
licensing schemes such as Creative Commons190 and Free and Open-
Source Software.191
The importance of keeping a record of permissions (‘chain
of title’)
- Keeping
a good record of all the relevant assignments and licences for use of other
people’s copyright material in another work
is essential to avoid being
liable for copyright
190 Creative Commons licences allow creators
to easily communicate which of the rights they reserve, and which rights they
waive for the benefit of recipients
or other creators.
191 Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) refers to software
designated by the creator as both free software
and open-source that anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and
change the software in any way. The source code is openly
shared so that people
are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software.
infringement. This documentation, often referred to as the ‘chain of
title’, is usually necessary for:
- producers to get
finance and distribution deals for films and television
- authors getting
a publisher to publish a non-fiction book
- libraries and
archives undertaking digital preservation projects.
Possible issues with the transfer and licensing of copyright
works
- In
the rest of this Part we discuss:
- licensing
through collective management organisations
- issues with the
Copyright Tribunal
- alternatives to
the Copyright Tribunal for resolving licensing disputes
- the use of
social media platforms and other creative communication tools
- other licensing
mechanisms that copyright owners might use
- orphan
works
- licence
stacking.
Licensing through collective management organisations
- Copyright
licensing can be very complex. As mentioned in paragraphs 434 to 437, copyright owners can split up their
exclusive rights and transfer some of them, license others and retain the rest
for themselves.
There can also be different copyright works, all with different
copyright owners, embedded in something most people would think of
as only one
creative work – like a book, album or movie.192
- Collective
management organisations (CMOs) (sometimes referred to as
‘copyright collecting societies’) play an important role in helping
both copyright owners
and users to navigate these
complexities.
- CMOs
make it easier for copyright owners to monetise their works. They also make it
easier for users to obtain permission to use those
works. CMOs are formed by
copyright owners coming together to create a single body to manage their
individual copyright works. They
are often formed on a national basis and
usually do three main things on behalf of their members (copyright owners).
They:
- license users to
use copyright works on behalf of their members
- collect the
royalty income from these users and distribute it to their members
- monitor the use
of the works of their members and take copyright infringement action on behalf
of their members.
- There
are at least eight CMOs active in New Zealand:
192 See paragraph 115 in Part 4 that discusses multiple owners
in movies, sound recordings etc.
CMO
|
Licensing schemes
|
Copyright Licensing New Zealand (CLNZ)
|
Printed works
|
Print Media Copyright Agency (PMCA)
|
Newspapers and magazines articles
|
Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) New Zealand
|
Christian music and media
|
Christian Video Licensing International New Zealand
|
Video licensing to churches
|
Recorded Music
|
Radio and television broadcasting of recorded music
|
APRA AMCOS New Zealand
|
Playing, performing, copying, recording and making available music
|
Screenrights
|
Television and radio broadcast copying by educational establishments
|
Copyright Agency193
|
Visual artistic works
|
- The
number and variety of CMOs differs from country to country. For example, Canada
has 29 and the United Kingdom has around 18.
63
|
Is there a sufficient number and variety of CMOs in New Zealand? If not,
which type copyright works do you think would benefit from
the formation of CMOs
in New Zealand?
|
Testing how CMOs operate from a member perspective
- CMOs
are not directly regulated under the Copyright Act. The Act does not set out how
CMOs must be formed, managed or dissolved. Nor
does it require them to operate
under the principles of transparency, accountability and good governance. Some
countries have introduced
rules intended to ensure CMOs operate under these
principles. Other countries require their CMOs to seek government approval to
make
licensing schemes available to users and for the fees
charged.
- Most
New Zealand CMOs are members of, or otherwise affiliated with, a corresponding
international body. For example, CLNZ is a member
of the International
Federation of Reproduction Right Organisations. These international bodies
facilitate cooperation among member CMOs by having agreed standards for how its
members should operate
and how royalties collected by its members are
distributed.
- We
have not heard of any issues with the way CMOs operate in New
Zealand.
64
|
If you are a member of a CMO, have you experienced problems with the way
they operate in New Zealand? Please give examples of any
problems
experienced.
|
Testing how CMOs operate from a user perspective
- CMOs
provide a significant benefit to copyright markets by connecting copyright
owners with users, simplifying the complexity and
providing an efficient way for
users to access copyright works. As a single entity representing a large number
of copyright owners,
CMOs have significant bargaining power when users seek to
license copyright works.
- This
position can be further strengthened when a CMO has the exclusive right to
negotiate licences on behalf of their members. However,
New Zealand CMOs no
longer obtain exclusive licences from their members. This was a condition of a
negotiated settlement between
the Commerce Commission and one of the CMOs
following an inquiry into competition issues under the Commerce Act
1986.
65
|
If you are a user of copyright works, have you experienced problems trying
to obtain a licence from a CMO? Please give examples of
any problems
experienced.
|
Issues with the Copyright Tribunal
- Anybody
who thinks a licence scheme operated by a CMO is unreasonable can apply to the
Copyright Tribunal194 (the Tribunal) for the scheme to be reviewed.
The Tribunal can hear disputes about the reasonableness of a licence fee or the
licence
terms and has the power to rewrite the licence terms (including changing
the licensing fees).195 The Tribunal is intended to be an open,
flexible and cost-effective forum for resolving licensing disputes of any
value.
- There
have been few applications to the Tribunal in recent years to resolve licensing
scheme disputes. The last applications (three
of them) were made in 2015. All
three were subsequently withdrawn.196 Previous applications to the
Tribunal appeared to have only involved large organisations (eg Universities of
New Zealand and MediaWorks
Radio) who pay significant licensing fees to use
copyright works.
- The
issues we have heard over the past few years about the Tribunal include
that:
- there are no
consequences for parties that do not comply with Tribunal orders, leading to
further delays as there is no incentive
for parties to comply with its
orders
- the cost of
using the Tribunal is too high
- the lack of
prescribed procedural rules has given rise to procedural disputes, leading to
further delays.
- Some
of these issues are being addressed through the Tribunal Powers and
Procedures Legislation Bill, introduced into Parliament in 2017. The Bill
will provide the Copyright Tribunal with a standard set of powers and procedures
that
are intended to improve its productivity and administrative
efficiency.
- We
have heard that the Copyright Act should prescribe detailed rules and procedures
for the Tribunal and parties to disputes to follow.
However, while requiring the
Tribunal and parties to dispute to follow detailed rules and procedures may
assist with resolving high
value
194 The Copyright Tribunal consist of a Chairperson
and from two to five other persons.
195 See sections 147 to 168 of the Copyright Act.
196 Information supplied by the Ministry of Justice.
disputes in a timely manner, such rules and procedures also create additional
and at times unnecessary compliance costs for all,
especially for low value
disputes. As stated above, the Tribunal is intended to be an open, flexible and
cost-effective forum for
resolving licensing disputes of any value. One of the
ways of doing this is to enable the Tribunal to determine its own procedures
and
to adjust them depending on the nature, value and parties to the
dispute.197
Cost of the Copyright Tribunal
- We
have heard that the Tribunal is an expensive forum for resolving licensing
dispute and only large organisations can afford to use
it to resolve disputes.
This may be a contributing factor as to why so few applications have been made
to the Tribunal. It is not
clear, however, why the Tribunal is viewed as an
expensive forum to use. Features intended to ensure it is an open, flexible and
cost-effective forum for resolving licensing disputes of any value, include:
- there is no fee
payable, nor any prescribed form, for making an application to the
Tribunal198
- there is no
minimum value for a licensing dispute, nor minimum amount for a licensing fee
payable under a scheme, before the Tribunal
will hear a dispute
- there is no
requirement for a party to be represented by a barrister, solicitor or
agent
- Tribunal
members’ remuneration and travelling expenses are paid out of money
appropriated by Parliament for that purpose (ie
the Tribunal’s costs to
hear and determine a dispute are not recovered from those who use the
Tribunal)
- there are
minimal rules and procedure prescribed under the Copyright Act giving the
Tribunal flexibility to determine its own procedures
and to adjust those
procedures to suit the dispute it is
determining.
66
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way the Copyright Tribunal
operates? Why do you think so few applications are being
made to the Copyright
Tribunal? What changes (if any) to the way the Copyright Tribunal regime should
be considered?
|
Alternatives to using the Copyright Tribunal for resolving
licensing scheme disputes
- The
Tribunal is not the only means for resolving licensing disputes with CMOs. CMOs
and licensees (or potential licensees) can use
alternative dispute resolution or
mediation services to resolve their dispute. At least one CMO (APRA AMCOS)
offers its own alternative
dispute resolution facility199 that it
claims to be faster and less expensive for resolving certain disputes compared
to using the Copyright Tribunal.
67
|
Which CMOs offer an alternative dispute resolution service? How frequently
are they used? What are the benefits (or disadvantages)
with these services when
compared to the Copyright Tribunal?
|
197 See section 214 of the Copyright Act.
198 The previous Government approved the introduction of a $600
filing fee in 2013. The Tribunals Powers and Procedure Legislation Bill
is making the legislative changes necessary to enable this fee to be
introduced.
199 See http://apraamcos.co.nz/feedback-centre/alternative-dispute-resolution/
Use of social media platforms and other creative communication tools
- The
transactions regime of the Copyright Act should provide incentives for, and
support, the creation of new technologies, including
social media platforms,
hosting platforms and other creative tools that assist creators and copyright
owners to disseminate and monetise
their works. Use of social media platforms,
hosting platforms and other creative tools for communicating are now of a scale
that
they are replacing traditional forms of marketing in terms of their
audience reach, effectiveness and market dominance.
- We
have also heard that these platforms and other creative tools for communicating
are increasingly requiring their users to give
open licences to the platforms to
use for all content that is uploaded, modified or created using their platforms.
These open licences
allow the owners of these platforms and other communication
tools to, for example, use such content in any manner they like, including
licensing others to use it, and without either asking permission or paying any
licensing fee to the user.
- These
licences may be undermining the ability of the creators to monetise the works
that are uploaded, modified or created using these
platforms. The impact of
these open licences on the ability of creators to monetise their creations is
unclear.
68
|
Has a social media platform or other communication tool that you have used
to upload, modify or create content undermined your ability
to monetise that
content? Please provide details.
|
69
|
What are the advantages of social media platforms or other communication
tools to disseminate and monetise their works? What are the
disadvantages? What
changes to the Copyright Act (if any) should be considered?
|
Are there any other mechanisms copyright owners could use to
license their works?
- One
emerging technology that copyright owner could use to transfer ownership or
license their works is blockchain technology. Blockchain
technology can provide
a secure method of proving when a work was created and who owns copyright in the
work. Through blockchain
technology, each transaction (such as an assignment or
licence) involving the work is traceable. The traceability feature can also
provide an alert when there is any unauthorised use of the
work.
70
|
Do the transactions provisions of the Copyright Act support the development
of new technologies like blockchain technology and other
technologies that could
provide new ways to disseminate and monetise copyright works? If not, in what
way do the provisions hinder
the development and use of new technologies?
|
Orphan works
- Copyright
works for which their copyright owners (appropriate licensors of the work) are
not easily identifiable or contactable are
generally referred to as
‘orphan works’. The older a
work, the more likely it will be an orphan work. Orphan works can also include
Crown copyright works.200
Why are orphan works an issue?
- As
discussed above in paragraph 442 it is
important for anyone wanting to use a copyright work to have a clear chain of
title for that use. We have heard that obtaining
permission to use an orphan
work can often be extremely difficult and time consuming, providing a
significant barrier to their use.
Potential users can be deterred from using an
orphan work from a fear that the copyright owner may appear at some later stage
to
assert copyright in the work and demand the user to pay a licence fee or that
further use of the work be stopped.
- We
have heard that orphan works are a significant problem for the GLAM sector,
especially in relation to preservation projects and
increasing demand by their
users that their collections be available to access online.201 This
sector often deals with large volumes of non- commercial, historical material
that has been written or created without any expectation
that anyone in the
future would be interested in it or its authorship. As copyright often extends
beyond the life of the author,
successive copyright owners must be tracked
through wills, many of which may no provision for the transfer of
copyright.
- Issues
associated with the use of orphan works are not limited to their preservation or
making collections available to users to access.
They can also potentially
stifle creativity and economic development. Not knowing or being able to contact
the copyright owner can
have a significant impact on, for example:
- a creator using
some or all of the orphan work to create a new work
- a business
developing new commercial uses for old works.
- Section
67 of the Copyright Act provides a narrow exception from infringement of
copyright when the identity of the author cannot
be ascertained by reasonable
inquiry. Knowing the author is critical to identify whether a work is protected
by copyright (ie when
copyright expired or will expire) and may be of assistance
for tracing the current copyright owner (assuming a chain of title exists).
However, the exception only applies where it is reasonable to assume copyright
in the work has expired. As an exception, it appears
unsuitable for copying
orphan works that are not clearly out of copyright.
71
|
Have you ever been impeded using, preserving or making available copies of
old works because you could not identify or contact the
copyright? Please
provide as much detail as you can about what the problem was and its
impact.
|
72
|
How do you or your organisation deal with orphan works (general approaches,
specific policies etc.)? And can you describe the time
and resources you
routinely spend on identifying and contacting the copyright owners of orphan
works?
|
73
|
Has a copyright owner of an orphan work ever come forward to claim
copyright after it had been used without authorisation? If so,
what was the
outcome?
|
200 This can happen when works protected by Crown
copyright are transferred by the Crown to other people or when Crown agencies
themselves
(often following one or more restructures) do not know who has
responsibility for a particular work.
201 See from page 66 for a
discussion of the GLAM sector.
Approaches taken overseas to address orphan works
- A
number of countries have grappled with the challenge of facilitating beneficial
uses of orphan works. Some have enacted laws to
address this issue on a
case-by-case basis, others have enacted laws that empower an organisation to
licence works or allow orphan
works to be used through extended collective
licensing systems operated by CMOs. Examples include:
- UK
– The Secretary of State can grant non-exclusive licences to use an
orphan work if the prospective user has conducted a diligent
search and not been
able to identify or contact the copyright owner. Licences granted are recorded
on a public register and licencing
fees paid are held on trust by the
Intellectual Property Office. The copyright owner has seven years to come
forward to claim the
fees paid.
- Canada
– Users can file an application with the Copyright Board of Canada for
a non- exclusive licence to use certain orphan works
on a case-by-case basis.
Applicants must demonstrate they have made a reasonable effort to locate the
copyright owner. Licensee fees
can be required to be paid to an appropriate
collective management organisation.
- Norway
– Collective management organisations are permitted to license certain
uses of orphan works.
- Japan
– Applications can be made to the Commissioner of the Agency of
Cultural Affairs for a licence to use certain types of orphan
works. Applicants
are required to demonstrate that they have conducted a diligent search and have
been unable to identify or contact
the copyright owner.
What were
the problems or benefits of the system of using an overseas regime for orphan
works?
74
Licence stacking
- Licence
stacking is where you need permission from many people before developing
and
commercialising a product. It can also been known as ‘royalty
stacking’ when licensing fees must be paid to various parties
to
commercialise a product.
- Open
data in New Zealand is commonly released for use under an attribution only
Creative Commons licence. We have heard that when
information is combined from
many different sources, even the most permissive licences for accessing that
information can become
unwieldly to manage. Datasets can pass through many
different people, each making changes, and each having to name all of the
previous
contributors. We have heard that the requirement to attribute all the
people who have made changes to a dataset can become a substantial
burden,
particularly for smaller or non-commercial projects.
What problems
do you or your organisation face when using open data released under an
attribution only Creative Commons Licences?
What changes to the Copyright Act
should be considered?
75
Part 7 – Enforcement of Copyright
Introduction
- The
Copyright Act provides a number of enforcement mechanisms, including civil and
criminal procedures to address infringement of
copyright. Supporting exclusive
rights with an efficient and effective enforcement regime is an important part
of providing creators
and copyright owners an incentive to create and
disseminate new works.
- This
Part covers potential issues with copyright enforcement. It does not cover
whether any particular action should constitute an
infringement of copyright or
a related right. That is the subject of Parts 4 (Rights) and 5
(Exceptions).
The current situation
Legal
action to enforce copyright
- Copyright
owners202 can take legal action against anyone found to be infringing
their exclusive rights without their permission.203 Legal action is
usually taken in the High Court but may also be taken in the District Court.
Cases are heard and decided by a judge
alone, rather than by a
jury.
- The
remedies the courts may order for copyright infringement include:
- injunctions
(typically an order for a person to stop a course of action – like selling
infringing copies)
- an award of
either damages to compensate for the injury to the copyright owner, including
additional damages in some circumstances204, or account of the
profits the infringer made from their infringing activity
- disposal of
infringing works and objects for making infringing copies of copyright
works.205
- If
the person who has infringed copyright can show that when the infringement
occurred they did not know, and had no reason to believe,
that copyright existed
in the work, the copyright owner will not be entitled to an award of damages.
However, the court can instead
order the infringer to pay the copyright owner
the profits attributable to the infringement.
202 For the purpose of this section, references to
‘copyright owners’ includes references to any exclusive
licensees.
203 Section 120 of the Copyright Act.
204 The courts take into account the wilfulness of the
infringement and any benefit that accrued to the infringer from the
infringement.
They may order the infringer to pay such additional damages as the
justice of the case
may require. See section 121(2) of the Copyright Act.
205 See sections 120-122 of the Copyright Act.
- Authors
and film directors are entitled to relief from infringement of their moral
rights by way of injunctions and an award of
damages.206
Other ways of enforcing copyright
- The
Copyright Act also provides copyright owners two other ways of enforcing
copyright:
- border
protection measures, where New Zealand Customs Service (Customs) will assist
copyright owners to prevent infringing works from
being imported
- the infringing
filing sharing regime.
Possible issues with the enforcement of copyright
- In
the rest of this Part we discuss issues related to:
- barriers to
taking legal action
- groundless
threats of legal action
- border
protection measures
- infringing file
sharing regime
- additional
measures to address online infringements
- who should bear
the cost of enforcing copyright in the digital environment
- criminal
liability.
Barriers to taking legal action
Proving
copyright exists in a work and who owns that copyright
- The
Copyright Act provides certain presumptions to facilitate copyright owners
taking legal action (ie making an initial application
to the courts) to enforce
their copyright.207 For example, there is a presumption that
published literary, dramatic or musical works qualify for copyright and that the
person
whose name appears on a copy of the work is the author of
it.
- However,
in order for the court to make a determination on infringement, the copyright
owner must establish the following four factors:208
- there is a work
in which right can subsist
- copyright does
subsist in the work
- they own
copyright in the work
- copyright has
been infringed.
206 See paragraph 226 onwards for a discussion of moral
rights.
207 Sections 126-129 of the Copyright Act.
208 P S Johnson & Assocs Ltd v Bucko Enterprises Ltd
[1975] 1 NZLR 311, at page 315.
- We
have heard that court action to enforce copyright often fails because the
copyright owner is unable to prove copyright exists in
the work or, if it does,
that they own the copyright.
- This
task can be difficult for copyright owners because, unlike other forms of
intellectual property rights like designs, patents
and trade marks, there is no
official register of copyright works to provide prima facie evidence that
the work is protected by copyright and who owns it.
- As
discussed in paragraphs 82 to 98, New Zealand’s international
obligations prohibit us from requiring people to register their copyright in
works before they benefit
from copyright protection. However, this does not mean
that a voluntary registration regime could not be implemented to assist
copyright
owners to enforce their copyright. For example, the Canadian Copyright
Office maintains a copyright register, where registration
provides evidence that
copyright exists and the person registered is the owner of copyright. The US
Copyright Office also maintains
a copyright register, where registration
entitles the copyright owner to seek statutory damages and attorney fees in the
federal
court for copyright infringement.
How difficult is it for
copyright owners to establish before the courts that copyright exists in a work
and they are the copyright
owners? What changes (if any) should be considered to
help copyright owners take legal action to enforce their copyright?
76
Non-exclusive licensees and CMOs cannot take legal action for
infringement
- Only
copyright owners and their exclusive licensees209 may take legal
action to enforce copyright.210 Although a licence gives
non-exclusive licensees a right to do one or more of the acts reserved for
copyright owners, they cannot
take legal action themselves to stop somebody else
from doing one of the reserved acts.
- There
may be circumstances, however, where it is reasonable for a non-exclusive
licensee to be able to take legal action to enforce
against people who infringe
copyright. We have heard, for example, that CMOs211 should be able to
enforce copyright on behalf of their members, even if they only have a
non-exclusive licence.
Should CMOs be able to take legal action to
enforce copyright? If so, under what circumstances?
What are the problems (or advantages) with reserving legal action to
copyright owners and their exclusive licensees? What changes
(if any) should be
considered?
78
77
209 An exclusive licensee is someone the copyright
owner has authorised, to the exclusion of everyone else (including the copyright
owner
themselves), to exercise a right that would otherwise be exercisable
exclusively by the copyright owner.
210 Section 123 of the Copyright Act.
211 Following action taken in 2010 by the Commerce Commission
under the Commerce Act 1986, CMOs can no longer obtain exclusive licences
from copyright owners. Licences given to CMOs must now be non-exclusive.
CMOs are therefore unable to take legal action for infringement, despite
their members (ie copyright owners) wanting them to do so.
Cost of taking legal action
- The
most significant barrier for copyright owners taking legal action is the cost.
Legal action in the courts is expensive and copyright
owners often limit their
enforcement actions to large-scale or commercial infringements. The cost can
also provide a strong incentive
for a copyright owner and an alleged infringer
to settle infringement claims without resorting to the courts. This can mean
fewer
cases are available to provide guidance on how to interpret the
law.
- Although
small-scale or occasional infringements may not have a significant damaging
impact on the copyright owner, the collective
impact of multiple infringements
of this nature can be significant.
Does the cost of enforcement have
an impact on copyright owners’ enforcement decisions? Please be specific
about how decisions
are affected and the impact of those decisions.
What changes (if any) should be considered?
79
Groundless threats of legal action
- The
Copyright Act provides that where the copyright owner takes legal action
alleging infringement, the defendant in those proceedings
(ie the alleged
infringer) may apply to court for a declaration that the proceedings were
unjustified and for an order that the plaintiff
pay damages for any loss
suffered by the defendant.212
- Nothing
in the Copyright Act, however, addresses the situation where the copyright owner
makes groundless threats of commencing legal
proceedings for infringing
copyright. These sorts of threats can result in damage to the people threatened,
including emotional stress
and disruption to businesses. Groundless threats can
also be made with the aim of stifling freedom of speech or preventing criticism
of a person or an organisation and their products or
services.
- Some
countries, including Australia, enable a person who has received groundless
threats of legal action to apply to the courts for:
- a declaration
that the threats were unjustified
- an injunction
against the continuance of the threats
- an order for
recovery of any damages that the aggrieved person has
sustained.213
Are groundless threats of legal
action for infringing copyright being made in New Zealand by copyright owners?
If so, how wide spread
do you think the practice is and what impact is the
practice having on recipients of such threats?
80
212 Section 130 of the Copyright Act.
213 Section 202 of the Australian Copyright Act 1968.
Border protection measures
- Border
protection measures are at-the-border measures provided under the Copyright Act,
and administered by Customs Service, to assist copyright owners to take legal
action against the importers of physical copies of
works that infringe
copyright. (These measures are also provided under the Trademarks Act 2002
to assist trade mark owners to take action against the importers of trade
mark infringing goods.)
- Under
the Copyright Act (and the Trademarks Act) rights holders can give a notice to
Customs requesting the detention of shipments of works suspected of
infringing
copyright. Customs are currently enforcing 335 notices from rights
owners.214 If Customs suspects that a shipment contains infringing
copies of works, it can detain the shipment and give notice to the importer
and
the copyright owner that the shipment has been detained.
- The
copyright owner then has 10 working days to take legal action against the
importer for infringing their copyright. If legal action
is not taken within
this period, Customs must release the goods to the importer. Importers also have
the option of voluntarily forfeiting
the shipment to the Crown, in which case
Customs arranges for the destruction of the shipment.
The changes required by CPTPP
- CPTPP
requires New Zealand to give Customs the power to initiate border protection
measures ex officio215 in respect of goods under their control
that are imported, destined for export, or in transit through New Zealand to
another destination.
- Changes
to implement CPTPP obligations have already been introduced into the Copyright
Act (and the Trademarks Act) by the Trans-Pacific Partnership Amendment Act
2016 but are not yet in force. These changes will enter into force on 30
December 2018, when CPTPP enters into force.
Potential issues with the border protection measures: payment of
$5,000 bond
- Right
holders must give Customs a letter of indemnity for any costs incurred by
Customs in applying the border protection measures,
and lodge a $5,000 bond as
security for non- payment of any invoices from Customs related to enforcement of
copyright. The bond is
to cover the risk that the rights holder fails to honour
their letter of indemnity. The bond, less any unpaid invoices and plus any
interest that has accrued on the bond, is returned to the copyright owner (or
trade mark owner) at the end of the notice period.216
- We
understand that Customs does not rely on the bond to recover its costs under the
border process related to copyright or trade mark
enforcement. However, Customs
incurs a cost for administering the bond regime. This cost is not recovered from
copyright and trade
mark owners.
214 As at 5 October 2018.
215 Ex officio powers enable Customs to act on their own
accord and without the need to have received a notice from a right holder.
216 Each notice from a copyright or trade mark owner must specify
the period that Customs is to enforce the notice. The maximum period
is five
years.
- We
have heard that the requirement to pay the $5,000 bond can be a barrier to small
businesses taking advantage of the border protection
measures to prevent the
importation of copyright infringing works (and trade mark infringing
goods).
- Customs
is considering the design of these arrangements and submissions received through
this Issues Paper on the border protection
measures will be provided to
Customs.
Is the requirement to pay the $5,000 bond to Customs
deterring right holders from using the border protection measures to prevent
the
importation of infringing works? Are there any issues with the border protection
measures that should be addressed? Please describe
these issues and their
impact.
81
Issues with the infringing file sharing regime
- The
Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011 introduced a three notice
regime for infringement of copyright by individuals
using peer-to-peer (P2P)
file sharing technologies (infringing file sharing regime). Its aim was to
provide an efficient, effective
and low cost enforcement regime to:
- deter
individuals from infringing copyright through the use of P2P file sharing
technologies
- educate the
public about copyright
- provide
compensation for copyright owners for the injury they have suffered because of
this activity.
- Under
the regime, copyright owners can request an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to
send up to three infringement notices to an account
holder who is alleged to
have infringed copyright using P2P file sharing technologies. An ISP can require
the copyright owner to
pay a fee of up to $25 to send each notice.217
After the third notice has been sent, the copyright owner may take a claim of up
to $15,000 to the Tribunal against the account holder.
A fee
of
$200 must be paid for each claim made to the Tribunal.218
- The
infringing file sharing regime was implemented in response to complaints that
court action was too expensive and copyright owners
need a more cost effective
method of combating online infringements. The infringing file sharing regime was
intended to provide an
alternative to using the courts to address the use of P2P
file sharing technologies to infringe copyright.
Are peer-to-peer
filing sharing technologies being used to infringe copyright? What is the scale,
breadth and impact of this infringement?
82
217 Regulation 7 of the Copyright (Infringing File
Sharing) Regulations 2011. The fee is set at a level intended to enable ISPs to
recover
their costs, including the cost of setting up a procedure for receiving
and sending notices.
218 Regulation 8 of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing)
Regulations 2011.
- Although
a number of infringement cases using the infringing file sharing provisions were
brought shortly after the regime came into
effect in 2012,219 we
understand that the regime is no longer being used by copyright
owners.220
- We
have heard a range of explanations as to why copyright owners are not using the
infringing file sharing regime. These include:
- The $25 fee
copyright owners must pay an ISP to send a notice to an account holder is too
high. Even if successful in the Tribunal,
the copyright owner can recover only a
contribution towards the total cost of the notices sent to the account
holder.
- Mistakes in
notices by ISPs and delays and failures by ISPs in sending notices have resulted
in notices being invalid. The costs associated
with notices being invalid
(because of ISPs) are borne by copyright owners with no recompense or ability to
recover the costs of
these notices.
- General
dissatisfaction by copyright owners with the outcome of Tribunal decisions,
particularly with the amounts it has awarded in
individual cases.
- Delays in
decisions by the Tribunal preventing copyright owners from giving timely
publicity to them as a deterrent to future acts
of
infringement.
What are the problems (or advantages) with
the infringing file sharing regime? What changes or alternatives to the
infringing filing
share regime (if any) should be considered?
Why do you think the infringing filing sharing regime is not being used to
address copyright infringements that occur over peer-to
peer file sharing
technologies?
84
83
Are additional enforcement measures needed for addressing
online infringements?
- A
number of websites have been created for primarily assisting individuals to
infringe copyright (pirate websites). In addition, a
range of technologies have
been developed (eg peer-to-peer filing sharing, TV set-top boxes, such as Kodi
boxes for streaming internet
content, and virtual private networks). Although
some of these technologies can be used for legitimate purposes, they can also
facilitate
large-scale online copyright infringement.
- The
use of pirate websites, which are usually hosted overseas and, therefore, beyond
the jurisdiction of New Zealand’s laws,
and the development of new
technologies for online
infringement create new challenges for copyright owners in addressing online
infringements. Traditional enforcement measures are
becoming largely ineffective
for addressing online infringements.
- Some
other countries have provided new enforcement measures to address online
infringement. For example, some countries permit copyright
owners to get a
website-
219 The first decision of the Copyright Tribunal
under the infringing file sharing regime was made in January 2013.
220 Since late 2015 ISPs do not appear to have been requested by
copyright owners to send any notices to their
account holders. The last claim to be taken to the Copyright Tribunal was
also in 2015.
blocking injunction to stop people from accessing overseas pirate
websites.221 These injunctions typically require local ISPs to block
people’s access to specified websites.
- Whether
copyright owners and their licensees are able to obtain website blocking
injunctions in New Zealand is uncertain. Copyright
owners may be able to apply
for a website blocking injunction by relying on section 92B of the Copyright
Act, Rules 2.1 and 1.6 of the High Court Rules and the High Court’s
inherent jurisdiction, but this is yet to be tested in the
courts.
- We
have heard that website blocking injunctions can give rise to concerns around
freedom of expression, which is protected under the
New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act 1990.
What are the problems (or advantages) with the
existing measures copyright owners have to address online infringements? What
changes
(if any) should be considered?
85
Should ISPs bear some of the cost of enforcing copyright in the
digital environment?
- The
current policy with respect to the cost of enforcing copyright is that:
- copyright owners
bear the cost of enforcing their property rights, as the principal beneficiaries
of those rights
- infringers
should pay compensation for the injury to the copyright owner caused by their
infringing actions and the copyright owner’s
expenses arising from taking
legal action.
Who should be required to pay ISPs’
costs if they assist copyright owners to take action to prevent online
infringements?
86
87
New measures to address online infringements that require cooperation of
intermediaries like ISPs to implement are challenging this
policy. The
implementation of the infringing file sharing regime brought this issue into the
spotlight. Website-blocking injunctions
have also sparked debate overseas on who
should pay ISPs’ costs to implement the injunctions. Countries imposing
website blocking
injunctions have adopted a variety of rules regarding who pays
to implement these injunctions.
Should ISPs be required to assist copyright owners enforce their rights? Why /
why not?
221 Jurisdictions that have introduced website
blocking injunctions include Australia, the EU and Singapore. The sale of
television set-top
boxes containing software for illicitly accessing paid
subscription services is also an offence in the EU.
Criminal liability
- Copyright
infringement that is considered particularly serious – for example because
it is done as part of a person’s
business or because it has a significant
negative impact on the copyright owner – can constitute a criminal
offence.222 In these circumstances, enforcement action by the Crown
can be in the wider public interest. Criminal liability can arise for a range
actions involving infringing objects or illicit recordings. These include:
- making or
importing for sale or hire
- possessing in
the course of business with a view to committing any copyright-infringing
act
- offering or
exposing for sale or hire, or selling or letting for hire
- exhibiting in
public
- distributing
otherwise in the course of business to such an extent as to prejudicially affect
the copyright owner.
- Criminal
liability can also arise when a person, for example:
- makes an object
specifically designed or adapted for making infringing copies of copyright
works
- causes a
literary, dramatic or musical work to be performed in public
- causes a film or
sound recording to be played in public.
- The
penalty on conviction of a person who commits any offence is a fine of up to
$150,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years.
Are
there any problems with the types of criminal offences or the size of the
penalties available under the Copyright Act? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
88
222 See sections 131 (infringing objects) and 198
(illicit recordings) of the Copyright Act.
Part 8 – Other issues
Introduction
- This
section focuses on specific issues not covered elsewhere in this Issues Paper.
In particular, it covers:
- Section 1
– The relationship between copyright and registered design protection
- Section 2
– Copyright and the Wai 262 inquiry.
Section 1 – Relationship between copyright and registered
design protection
Introduction
- Industrial
designs in New Zealand are protected under the Copyright Act as artistic works.
They can also be protected by registering them under the Designs Act 1953, as
designs. This dual protection is
unusual internationally and may be creating
issues for New Zealand businesses.
- This
section covers:
- the definition
of ‘industrial design’
- industrial
design protection under the Copyright Act
- industrial
design protection under the Designs Act
- the differences
between copyright protection and registering a design
- industrial
design protection internationally
- potential
consequences of providing both copyright and registered design protection for
industrial designs.
What is an ‘industrial design’?
- The
World Intellectual Property Organization defines ‘industrial design’
as:
... the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of an article. An
industrial design may consist of three dimensional features, such as the
shape
or surface of an article, or two dimensional features, such as patterns, lines
or colour.223
- An
industrial design generally relates to the appearance of something manufactured
by an
’industrial process or means’224 (as opposed to a method
of construction), the material it is manufactured from or how it functions.
Industrial designs can be applied
to a large range of articles,225
including furniture, home appliances, utensils, product packaging, containers,
patterns applied to cloth or wallpaper, and car parts
such as tyre treads.
Industrial design protection under the Copyright Act
- The
creation of an industrial design will usually involve the development of
drawings or models, which are automatically protected
as artistic works under
the Copyright Act.226
- The
term of protection for industrial designs varies under the Copyright Act.
Section 75 of the Copyright Act provides that an artistic work that is applied
industrially227 receives a term of protection of:
- 16 years from
the date it was created if it is not a work of artistic
craftsmanship228
- 25 years if it
is a work of artistic craftsmanship.
- If
the design is not applied industrially,229 the term of protection
will be the standard term for an artistic work – the life of the author
plus 50 years.
Industrial design protection under the Designs Act
- Industrial
designs can also be protected in New Zealand by registering them under the
Designs Act. This involves making an application
to the Intellectual Property
Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) and paying the prescribed
fee.
- Registration
of a design only provides protection for the external appearance of a
manufactured article. Designs that involve a shape
or configuration that is
determined by the function carried out by the article do not qualify for
registration under the Designs
Act. However, these designs may be eligible for
patent protection under the Patents Act 2013.
Rights given by design registration
- The
Designs Act gives the owner of the registered design the exclusive right to
make, import, sell or license the registered design.230 Initial
registration is for a five year term and registration can be renewed every 5
years up to a maximum term of 15 years.
224 The definition of ‘design’ in the
Designs Act is for an industrial design. The inclusion of ‘industrial
process
or means’ in the ‘design’ definition (which is not in
the WIPO definition) is not defined in the Designs Act.
225 ‘Article’ is defined as “any article of
manufacture; and includes any part of an article if that part is made and
sold separately”.
226 See section 2 of the Copyright Act, which discusses the
categories of artistic works protected under the Copyright Act.
227 Section 75 of the Copyright Act states that a design is
applied industrially if more than 50 three-dimensional copies of a work are made
for sale or hire or one
or more three-dimensional copies of a work are created
in
lengths for sale or hire.
228 See section 75(4) of the Copyright Act. The term
‘artistic craftsmanship’ is not defined in the Copyright Act.
However, it seems clear from court decisions that a work of ‘artistic
craftsmanship’ must possess some ‘artistic
quality’.
Differences between copyright and registered design protection
- The
key differences between copyright protection and design registration are
summarised in the table below.
Table 7: Comparison of Copyright
and Design Registration
Copyright protection
|
Registered design protection
|
Obtaining protection
|
Automatic on creation of the work embodying the design. No fee is payable
for protection.
|
An application to register the design must be made to IPONZ and a fee is
payable for registration.
|
Exclusive rights
|
To copy, import for sale, and sell copies of the work.
|
To make, import for sale, sell or hire any article to which the registered
design has been applied.
|
Criteria for protection
|
The design must be ‘original’.
|
The design must be ‘new or original’. A design is not new if it
has been previously registered or published in New Zealand.
The threshold for
this protection is higher than copyright protection.
|
Terms of protection
|
16 years if applied industrially, 25 years if it is also a work of artistic
craftsmanship. 50 years after death of owner if it is
not industrially
applied.
|
Up to 15 years if renewed by the owner at five yearly intervals.
|
Protection against independent creation
|
Another person who develops the same design without knowledge of the
original does not infringe copyright in the original design.
|
The owner of a registered design is the only person who can make or sell
the design.
Anybody else who makes or sells the design infringes the registration, even
if they developed it independently without knowledge of
the earlier
design.
|
Proof of ownership for the purpose of enforcing rights
|
The copyright owner may be required to establish that the work is protected
by copyright and they are the owners of that copyright.231
|
Registration provides prima facie evidence that the design is
protected and of who owns the rights to the design.
|
Renewal fees required?
|
No.
|
Yes, after every five years, up to a maximum term of 15 years.
|
Industrial design protection internationally
- Industrial
designs do not receive the same protection overseas. In some countries they do
not receive any copyright protection, rather
protection can only be obtained by
registering the design.
- All
countries provide a registration regime to protect industrial designs. This
protection is only provided for designs that are ‘new’
– that
is, the design has not been disclosed to the public before the design
application is filed. Countries apply different
standards
when
230 See section 11(1) of the Designs Act.
231 See Part 6 of the Issues Paper for a discussion on enforcing
copyright.
determining whether a design is new. Although New Zealand provides that the
design must not have been previously published or registered
in New Zealand,
many countries require that the design must not have been used, registered or
published anywhere in the world prior
to the date of filing of the
application.
- Some
countries, including EU members, provide for an ‘unregistered design
right’ for industrial designs that provides
rights similar to copyright.
This right is granted automatically when the design is disclosed to the public.
The term of the right
is short (three years in the EU) and only provides
protection against copying.
Possible issues with New Zealand’s current protection for
industrial designs
- We
have heard that providing dual protection for industrial designs may be creating
issues for local designers. Potential issues include:
- relying on
copyright protection in New Zealand could be making it difficult to obtain
protection in other countries
- New Zealand
provides greater protection to foreign designers compared to the protection that
other countries provide to New Zealand
designers
- innovations,
like 3-D printing, may make it difficult to determine whether a design has been
applied industrially.
Copyright protection could be making it difficult to obtain
protection in other countries
- An
advantage of providing copyright protection is that it is free and creators do
not have to do anything to protect their designs.
However, this may also create
an over-reliance on
copyright protection, which may not always be in the design owner’s
interests.
- If
a New Zealand designer relies only on copyright to protect their industrial
designs in New Zealand, they may not be able to protect
their designs overseas.
This is because:
- Their designs
will probably not qualify for copyright protection outside of New Zealand
because most countries exclude industrial
designs from qualifying for copyright
protection.232
- If they have
already offered for sale articles incorporating the design in New Zealand before
applying to register their design overseas,
they will not be able to register
their design overseas. Their design will not be considered
‘new’.
New Zealand provides greater protection for foreign
designers
- Industrial
designs created in other countries are automatically protected by copyright in
New Zealand, even though designs created
in New Zealand will not receive
reciprocal copyright protection in those other countries.
Innovations may make it difficult to determine whether a design
has been applied industrially
- The
term of copyright for an industrial design depends on whether or not it has been
applied industrially. This is clear when a design
is distributed by selling or
hiring physical copies but less clear when digital files for making a copy are
distributed. For example,
it is not clear if
232 However, they may be eligible for unregistered
design rights, for example in the EU.
this would be determined on the basis of the number of files distributed through
sale or licensing arrangements or the number of
copies actually made. If the
latter, it is unclear how the number of copies made would be determined.
- The
development of 3-D printing has given design owners the option of distributing
their designs as digital files, rather than as
physical articles. The digital
files used to control 3-D printers can be produced by scanning a
three-dimensional object. If the
3-D object incorporates an industrial design
that is protected by copyright, it is not clear whether the scanning of the
object should
constitute the making of an unauthorised copy of the object. While
the unauthorised printing of a copy of the object using a 3-D
printer may
infringe copyright in the object,233 it is less clear whether
creating the digital file by scanning the object would be
infringement.
89
|
Do you think there are any problems with (or benefits from) having an
overlap between copyright and industrial design protection?
What changes (if
any) should be considered?
|
90
|
Have you experienced any problems when seeking protection for an industrial
design, especially overseas?
|
|
We are interested in further information on the use of digital 3-D printer
files to distribute
|
91
|
industrial designs. For those that produce such files, how do you protect
your designs?
|
|
Have you faced any issues with the current provisions of the Copyright
Act?
|
The Hague Agreement
- The
Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs
(the Hague Agreement) effectively establishes
an international system (the Hague
system) that allows industrial designs to be protected in multiple countries
with minimal formalities.234 Sixty seven countries have joined the
Hague Agreement, including some of New Zealand’s key trade partners, such
as the EU,
Japan, Singapore and the US. Australia is currently considering
whether to join the Hague Agreement and Canada is in the process
of implementing
legislative changes to enable it to join.
- We
have heard that New Zealand not being a member of the Hague Agreement makes it
more expensive and complicated for New Zealand designers
to protect their
designs overseas.
Do you think there are any problems with (or
benefits from) New Zealand not being a member of the Hague Agreement?
92
233 3-D printing a copy of a copyright work without
the copyright owner’s permission is likely to be an infringement under
section 29 of the Copyright Act, as the making of copies is a restricted act
under section 16.
234 More information about the Hague Agreement and the Hague
system is available at
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/hague/
Section 2 – Copyright and the Wai 262 inquiry
- This
section looks at the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 262 inquiry
in relation to expressions of Māori traditional
knowledge (which the
Waitangi Tribunal referred to as ‘taonga works’), and what the Wai
262 inquiry means for the Copyright Act review.
- In
its report on the Wai 262 inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal made several
recommendations to ensure recognition and protection of Māori
rights and
interests under the Treaty of
Waitangi in the different regimes that make up New Zealand’s intellectual
property system. It found the copyright regime (along
with the related designs
and trade marks regimes) did not provide adequate protection for Māori
rights and interests in taonga
works and mātauranga
Māori.235 Rather than recommending changes to copyright law, it
recommended that the Crown establish a new, unique regime to provide new
protections.
- In
this section, we seek your views on the Waitangi Tribunal’s discussion of
taonga works and mātauranga Māori, and
how the Government should
progress work to provide better protections for them.
- The
section covers:
- a brief summary
of the Wai 262 inquiry
- a detailed
discussion of the the key concepts in te ao Māori (the Māori world)
and the Waitangi Tribunal’s high-level
findings on taonga works and
mātauranga Māori
- the Waitangi
Tribunal’s particular analysis of how the copyright regime protects
Māori rights and interests in taonga works
and mātauranga
Māori
- our view of the
implications of the Waitangi Tribunal’s analysis and recommendations for
the Copyright Act review, and our proposed next steps for progressing
work to
protect taonga works and mātauranga Māori.
235 ‘Mātauranga Māori’
encompasses the body of knowledge originating from Māori tūpuna
(ancestors). It
includes the Māori worldview and perspectives, as well as Māori
creativity and cultural practices, including te reo Māori.
This is
discussed further below from paragraph 552.
The inquiry in brief
- In
the Wai 262 inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal examined the claims of six iwi
(Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Kuri, Te Rarawa, Ngāti
Porou, Ngāti
Kahungunu and Ngāti Koata), who sought to establish
“who owns or controls three things”:236
• mātauranga Māori
- the
“tangible products of mātauranga Māori” –
traditional artistic and cultural expressions that the Waitangi
Tribunal
referred to as ‘taonga works’237
- the things that
are “important contributors to mātauranga Māori” –
including the unique characteristics
of indigenous flora and fauna, which the
Waitangi Tribunal referred to as ‘taonga species’ and New
Zealand’s natural environment more generally.238
- The
Wai 262 inquiry was the Waitangi Tribunal’s first whole-of-government
inquiry, spanning almost 20 years – reflecting
the significant breadth and
complexity of the claims. It has been said that the inquiry was about the place
of Māori culture,
identity and traditional knowledge in New Zealand's laws,
government policies and practices. 239 Part of the inquiry examined
the interface between te ao Māori and New Zealand’s intellectual
property regimes, including
the copyright regime.
- In
2011, the Waitangi Tribunal released its report, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A
Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori
Culture and Identity. Chapter 1 of the Wai 262 report deals with the
relationship between taonga works and intellectual property
rights.
Key concepts in Chapter 1 of the Wai 262 report
- In
Chapter 1, the Waitangi Tribunal focuses on three different concepts: taonga
works, taonga-derived works and mātauranga Māori.
Taonga works
- ‘Taonga
work’ is a term coined by the Waitangi Tribunal to describe “the
unique artistic and intellectual expressions
of te ao
Māori”.240 It suggested the following
definition:241
A taonga work is a work, whether or not
it has been fixed, that is in its entirety an expression of mātauranga
Māori; it
will relate to or invoke ancestral connections
236 Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A
Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori
Culture and Identity: Te Taumata
Tuatahi (Wai 262, 2011) at 17.
237 Ibid.
238 Ibid.
239 https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/ko-aotearoa-tenei-report-on-the-wai-262-claim-released/
240 Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report
into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture
and Identity: Te Taumata
Tuatahi (Wai 262, 2011) at 19.
241 Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into
Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy
Affecting Māori Culture and Identity: Te Taumata Tuarua (Wai 262,
2011) vol 1 at 96.
(whakapapa), and contain or reflect traditional narratives or stories. A
taonga work will possess mauri242 and have living
kaitiaki243 in accordance with tikanga Māori.
- We
discuss the concepts of ‘mauri’ and ‘kaitiaki’
below.
- Examples
of taonga works include haka, karakia, waiata, weavings, carvings, tā
moko,
designs, and other Māori cultural expressions. The haka Ka Mate is
an example of a well- known taonga work.244
Taonga-derived works
- The
Waitangi Tribunal also coined the term ‘taonga-derived work’. It
defined a taonga- derived work as:245
...a work that
derives its inspiration from mātauranga Māori or a taonga work but
does not relate to or invoke ancestral
connections, nor contain or reflect
traditional narratives or stories in a direct way. A taonga-derived work is
identifiably Māori
but does not have living kaitiaki in accordance with
tikanga Māori.
- Taonga-derived
works can also be haka, karakia, waiata, weavings, carvings and tā moko
designs and other Māori cultural
expressions. They are distinguished from
taonga works because they do not invoke ancestors, or have living kaitiaki or
mauri. Examples
include the stylised koru on Air New Zealand planes,
contemporary jewellery, textile, ceramic and graphic design works by Māori
and non-Māori artists and craftspeople.
Mātauranga Māori
- The
Waitangi Tribunal discussed this in the following
terms:246
‘Mātauranga’ derives from
‘mātau’, the verb ‘to know’.
‘Mātauranga’
can be literally
translated as ‘knowing’ or ‘knowledge’. But
‘mātauranga’ encompasses not only what is known but also
how it is known – that is, the way of perceiving and understanding
the world, and the values or systems of thought that underpin
those
perceptions
‘Mātauranga Māori’ therefore refers not only to
Māori knowledge, but also to the Māori way of knowing.
... mātauranga Māori was a product of the interaction between
the culture of settlers from Hawaiki and the environment of
Aotearoa.
Mātauranga Māori incorporates language, whakapapa, technology, systems
of law and social control, systems of
property and value exchange, forms of
expression, and much more.
- The
Waitangi Tribunal described mātauranga Māori relating to taonga works
as “the intangible intellectual basis for
taonga works and at least some
aspects of taonga-derived works”.247
242 The Waitangi Tribunal defined ‘mauri’
as: the life principle or living essence contained in all things, animate and
inanimate.
243 The Waitangi Tribunal defined ‘kaitiaki’ as:
guardian, protector.
244 Ka Mate receives sui generis protection under the
Haka Ka Mate Attribution Act 2014.
245 Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into
Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and
Identity: Te Taumata
Tuarua (Wai 262, 2011) vol 1 at 96.
246 Ibid, at 16.
Kaitiakitanga and the kaitiaki relationship
- An
underlying principle behind the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendations is the
kaitiaki
relationship held by Māori with taonga works and mātauranga
Māori. This is the relationship between taonga works and
mātauranga
Māori, and “those who are responsible for safeguarding them, whether
or not they are the original creators”.248 This relationship is
informed by kaitiakitanga, a foundational concept in te ao Māori.
- Kaitiakitanga
relates to several other key concepts in te ao Māori – in particular,
whanaungatanga, mauri and whakapapa.
The Waitangi Tribunal explained how they
interconnect in this way:249
...the defining principle
is whanaungatanga, or kinship. In te ao Māori, all of the myriad
elements of creation – the living and the dead, the animate and inanimate
– are seen as alive and inter-related. All are infused with mauri
(that is, a living essence or spirit) and all are related through
whakapapa.
The people of a place are related to its mountains, rivers
and species of plant and animal, and regard them in personal terms. Every
species, every place, every type of rock and stone, every person (living or
dead), every god, and every other element of creation
is united through this web
of common descent, which has its origins in the primordial parents, Ranginui
(the sky) and Papa-tu-ā-nuku
(the earth) .
This system of thought provides intricate descriptions of the
many parts of the environment and how they relate to each other. It
asserts
hierarchies of right and obligation among them...
- The
rights and obligations of whanaungatanga are encompassed in the ethic of
kaitiakitanga:250
Kaitiakitanga is the obligation,
arising from the kin relationship, to nurture or care for a person or thing. It
has a spiritual aspect,
encompassing not only an obligation to care for and
nurture not only physical well-being but also mauri.
It is a way of thinking and acting that seeks to express and
enhance whanaungatanga with taonga in the natural environment.
- Kaitiakitanga
is also related to the concepts of mana and
rangatiratanga.251
...those who have mana (or, to use Treaty terminology,
rangatiratanga) must exercise it in accordance with the values of kaitiakitanga
– to act unselfishly, with right mind and heart, and with proper
procedure. Mana and kaitiakitanga go together as right and
responsibility, and
that kaitiakitanga responsibility can be understood not only as a cultural
principle but as a system of law.
247 Ibid, at 85.
248 Ibid, at 31.
249 Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into
Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and
Identity: Te Taumata
Tuarua (Wai 262, 2011) vol 1 at 17.
250 Ibid.
251 Ibid.
The Waitangi Tribunal’s high-level findings on taonga works
The principle of tino rangatiratanga
- The
Waitangi Tribunal considered that Māori are guaranteed ‘te tino
rangatiratanga’, as expressed in the Māori
text of the Treaty of
Waitangi, over their taonga works and
mātauranga Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal described the concept of te
tino rangatiratanga as follows:252
In substance,
this conveys the idea that the rights of authority and control then
exercised by the tribal leaders will be protected. Those rights are said
to apply to ‘o
ratou taonga katoa’ – all the treasured things of Māori
tribes (‘nga hapu’) and all Māori people
(‘nga tangata
katoa’).
- The
Waitangi Tribunal considered that the emphasis of ‘authority and
control’ inherent in the concept of tino rangatiratanga
is to be preferred
over the absolute concept of ‘exclusive possession’ as expressed in
the English text of the Treaty.
- The
Waitangi Tribunal went on to give further background on the meaning of
‘rangatiratanga’ as follows:253
Its root
word is rangatira, meaning tribal leader – literally, one who weaves
together (ranga) a group of people (tira). So
rangatiratanga carries
expectations about right behaviour, appropriate priorities and ethical
decision-making that are deeply embedded
in Māori culture.
For example, rangatira would be expected to value kinship,
respect the tapu and mauri of the natural elements surrounding the community,
and above all be the embodiment of kaitiakitanga. Rangatira who behave in this
way are said to have great mana.
Recognising tino rangatiratanga in the modern IP system
- A
key aspect of the Waitangi Tribunal’s analysis was to consider how the
legal intellectual property framework should deliver
to Māori a reasonable
measure of control over the use of taonga works and mātauranga
Māori.
- The
Waitangi Tribunal considered that the nature and extent of kaitiaki
rangatiratanga in taonga works and mātauranga Māori
could be properly
resolved “only on a case-by-case basis”,254 and could be
resolved through the following three-stage
assessment:255
An initial step is to understand the
relationship between the kaitiaki and the particular taonga work or
mātauranga Māori
in question. Once that relationship is properly
understood in its cultural context, the next step is to identify any other valid
interests in the taonga work or mātauranga Māori, and then to balance
them against those of the kaitiaki.
252 Ibid, at 79.
253Ibid, at 80.
254 Ibid.
255 Ibid.
- At
the first step, the Waitangi Tribunal reached four conclusions, which we have
paraphrased as follows:256
- Whether the work
in question is a taonga work or a taonga-derived work, Māori are entitled
to prevent derogatory and offensive
public uses of it.
- If it is a
taonga work, then the kaitiakitanga relationship that comes with it justifies
more extensive rights in Treaty terms. These
would include rights to
consultation and, where necessary, to give consent to the commercial use of such
works.
- Mātauranga
Māori is also entitled to protection against derogatory and offensive
public use.
- Where kaitiaki
can be identified for closely held mātauranga Māori, they too will be
entitled to be involved in decisions
over the use of that mātauranga
Māori.
- At
the second step, the Waitangi Tribunal identified the interests of private
rights holders and the public interest in general access
to the public domain as
valid additional interests. In balancing their interests with those of kaitiaki
(the third step), it considered
that the level of protection that is reasonable
in all circumstances was as follows:257
- Taonga works,
taonga-derived works and mātauranga Māori are entitled to protection
from derogatory and offensive public
use.
- While it is
inappropriate to interfere in pre-existing vested rights, any future use of
taonga works for commercial purposes should
occur only after consulting and, in
appropriate cases, gaining the consent of the
kaitiaki.
- The
Waitangi Tribunal considered that a new legal framework should be introduced to
give effect to these two principles.
Copyright and the protection of taonga works
- Taonga
works and taonga derived works can be protected as copyright works (and may also
be protectable as trade marks or registered
designs). However, the Waitangi
Tribunal found that there was a wide gap between the protection the claimants
sought in respect of
taonga works and mātauranga Māori and those that
are offered by existing intellectual property rights, in particular copyright
and trade mark law.
- The
Waitangi Tribunal noted that there are a number of aspects of the copyright
regime that do not address the concerns of the claimants.
These
include:258
- The
requirement for works to be original to qualify for copyright – Many
important taonga works have been passed down from generation to generation. This
means that they might not be considered
‘original’ works and
therefore not eligible for copyright protection.
- The
requirement for works to be fixed in a material form – Oral
traditions, including whakapapa (genealogy), traditional korero (formal
speechmaking), or mōteatea
(traditional Māori chant or lament) will not qualify for copyright
protection unless they are written down.
256 Ibid, at 86.
257 Ibid, at 91.
258 Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into
Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and
Identity: Te Taumata
Tuatahi (Wai 262, 2011) at 39.
- Limited
duration of copyright – Kaitiaki have perpetual relationships with
taonga works, while copyright has a limited term.
- Lack of
protection against offensive or derogatory use – The copyright regime
does not provide kaitiaki with the means to prevent uses of taonga works that
are culturally offensive.
- Copyright
does not protect ideas, only their expression – Kaitiaki are as
concerned about the integrity of the mātauranga Māori underlying a
work as they are about the work
itself. They want to control the use of both the
taonga work and the underlying mātauranga Māori.
- The
Waitangi Tribunal summed up its analysis of how the intellectual property system
protects the kaitiaki interest as follows:259
IP law
protects the kaitiaki interest in mātauranga Māori or taonga works but
only to a very limited extent. There is no
recognition of the perpetual kaitiaki
relationship with
mātauranga Māori or taonga works. Nor does IP law reflect the
guardianship role that is essential to kaitiakitanga. This
means that IP law is
not focused on the kaitiaki
obligation to safeguard and protect the integrity of mātauranga
Māori and taonga works. In addition, the law does not prevent
derogatory or
offensive use of mātauranga Māori. Rather, the focus of IP law is on
facilitating commercial exploitation.
- We
consider that these comments can be applied to the copyright
regime.
The Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendations for reform
- The
Waitangi Tribunal did not recommend that any changes be made to the Copyright
Act (or any of the relevant IP regimes) to deal with taonga works and
mātauranga Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal’s view
was that the
claimants’ concerns should be addressed through a new legal regime for
taonga works and mātauranga Māori.
- The
new regime would:260
- provide two new
objection mechanisms:
- a
general objection mechanism to prohibit the derogatory or offensive use of
taonga works, taonga-derived works and mātauranga
Māori
- a
mechanism by which kaitiaki could prevent any commercial exploitation
of
taonga works or mātauranga Māori unless there has been consultation
with the relevant kaitiaki and, if found appropriate,
kaitiaki
consent
- establish an
expert commission on taonga works, taonga-derived works and mātauranga
Māori to:
- administer
these new objection processes
- maintain
a register of kaitaki and their mātauranga Māori or taonga works
- publish
best-practice guidelines for the use, care, protection, and custody of
mātauranga Māori, taonga works and taonga-derived
works
- facilitate the
development of principles on which to base decisions about the nature
of
259 Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A
Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori
Culture and Identity: Te Taumata
Tuarua (Wai 262, 2011) vol 1 at 65.
260 Ibid, at 99-100.
kaitiaki involvement in the commercial use of taonga works.
Wai 262 recommendations on taonga works and mātauranga
Māori
- administer
new objection processes
- maintain
register of taonga works
- publish
guidelines for use, care and protection of taonga works
and
mātauranga Māori
New commission
- to prohibit the
offensive or derogatory public use
- to prevent
commercial use without consultation
New mechanisms
- development of
principles to assist decisions about the nature of kaitiaki involvement in
commercial use of taonga works
New principles
- The
standalone regime recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal would be separate from,
and independent of, the current intellectual property
laws. However, the
Waitangi Tribunal also acknowledged that such a regime would need to interface
with the current intellectual property
system. It could affect, for example, how
copyright arises, and whether trade marks or registered designs can be granted
and enforced.
Progressing work to protect taonga works and mātauranga
Māori
- As
the Waitangi Tribunal noted in its report, the introduction of a legal framework
to protect of kaitiaki interests in taonga works
and mātauranga Māori
is important:261
It would create, for the first time
in New Zealand’s history, a legal environment conducive to the long-term
survival of mātauranga
Māori and the kaitiaki relationship.
- Consideration
of the Waitangi Tribunal’s findings in Chapter 1 of the Wai 262 report
deserves a dedicated work stream. Our proposed
process for progressing this work
is to initiate a separate work stream at the options stage of the Copyright
Act review. In this work stream, we would seek the views of the
Crown’s Treaty partners and the public on the Waitangi Tribunal’s
findings and recommendations with a view to developing specific proposals for
legislative change to protect the kaitiaki interest
in taonga works and
mātauranga Māori.
- It
is essential that any new regime to protect the kaitiaki interest in taonga
works and mātauranga Māori is compatible
with the IP system –
the copyright regime in particular, but also the trade marks, designs and
geographical indications regimes.
As the Waitangi Tribunal recognised, any new
regime must effectively interface with the intellectual property system so that
no irresolvable
conflict arises between them. It is also important that we are
cognisant of whether there are other Treaty of Waitangi considerations
that
require specific attention in the copyright regime itself. For this reason, we
propose that the Copyright Act review and the new work stream on taonga
works take place in parallel, at the same time.
261 Ibid, at 91.
- Engagement
with Māori, as Treaty partners, and the broader community will be an
integral part of the proposed work stream on
taonga works. We seek your views on
how we should engage on these issues.
93
94
95
96
97
|
Have we accurately characterised the Waitangi Tribunal’s analysis of
the problems with the current protections provided for
taonga works and
mātauranga Māori? If not, please explain the inaccuracies.
|
Do you agree with the Waitangi Tribunal’s use of the concepts
‘taonga works’ and ‘taonga- derived works’?
If not, why
not?
|
The Waitangi Tribunal did not recommend any changes to the copyright
regime, and instead recommended a new legal regime for taonga
works and
mātauranga Māori. Are there ways in which the copyright regime might
conflict with any new protection of taonga
works and mātauranga
Māori?
|
Do you agree with our proposed process to launch a new work stream on
taonga works alongside the Copyright Act review? Are there any other Treaty of
Waitangi considerations we should be aware of in the Copyright Act review?
|
How should MBIE engage with Treaty partners and the broader community on
the proposed work stream on taonga works?
|
Part 9 – Recap of questions
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
|
Are the above objectives the right ones for New Zealand’s copyright
regime? How well do you think the copyright system is achieving
these
objectives?
|
Are there other objectives that we should be aiming to achieve? For
example, do you think adaptability or resilience to future technological
change
should be included as an objective and, if so, do you think that would be
achievable without reducing certainty and clarity?
|
Should sub-objectives or different objectives for any parts of the Act be
considered (eg for moral rights or performers’ rights)?
Please be specific
in your answer.
|
What weighting (if any) should be given to each objective?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way the Copyright Act
categorises works?
|
Is it clear what ‘skill, judgement and labour’ means as a test
as to whether a work is protected by copyright? Does this
test make copyright
protection apply too widely? If it does, what are the implications, and what
changes should be considered?
|
Are there any problems with (or benefits arising from) the treatment of
data and compilations in the Copyright Act? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the way the default rules for
copyright ownership work? What changes (if any) should we consider?
|
What problems (or benefits) are there with the current rules related to
computer-generated works, particularly in light of the development
and
application of new technologies like artificial intelligence to general works?
What changes, if any, should be considered?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the rights the Copyright Act gives
visual artists (including painting, drawings, prints, sculptures etc)? What
changes (if any) should be considered?
|
What are the problems creators and authors, who have previously transferred
their copyright in a work to another person, experience
in seeking to have the
copyright in that work reassigned back to them? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with how Crown copyright operates? What
alternatives (if any) do you think should be considered?
|
Are there any problems (or benefits) in providing a copyright term for
communication works that is longer than the minimum required
by New
Zealand’s international obligations?
|
Are there any problems (or benefits) in providing an indefinite copyright
term for the type of works referred to in section 117?
|
Do you think there are any problems with (or benefits arising from) the
exclusive rights or how they are expressed? What changes (if
any) should be
considered?
|
Are there any problems (or benefits) with the secondary liability
provisions? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way authorisation liability
currently operates? What changes (if any) do you think
should be
considered?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way the right of
communication to the public operates? What changes, if any, might
be
needed?
|
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
|
What problems (or benefits) are there with communication works as a
category of copyright work? What alternatives (if any) should
be
considered?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with using ‘object’ in the
Copyright Act? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Do you have any concerns about the implications of the Supreme
Court’s decision in Dixon v R?
Please explain.
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with how the Copyright Act applies to
user-generated content? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
What are the advantages and disadvantages of not being able to renounce
copyright? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Do you have any other concerns with the scope of the exclusive rights and
how they can be infringed? Please describe.
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the way the moral rights are
formulated under the Copyright Act? What changes to the rights (if any) should
be considered?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with providing performers with greater
rights over the sound aspects of their performances than
the visual
aspects?
|
Will there be other problems (or benefits) with the performers’
rights regime once the CPTPP changes come into effect? What
changes to the
performers’ rights regime (if any) should be considered after those
changes come into effect?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the TPMs protections? What changes
(if any) should be considered?
|
Is it clear what the TPMs regime allows and what it does not allow? Why/why
not?
|
Do you have examples of activities or uses that have been impeded by the
current framing and interpretation of the exceptions for
criticism, review, news
reporting and research or study? Is it because of a lack of certainty? How do
you assess any risk relating
to the use? Have you ever been threatened with, or
involved in, legal action? Are there any other barriers?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with how any of the criticism, review,
news reporting and research or study exceptions operate
in practice? Under what
circumstances, if any, should someone be able to use these exceptions for a
commercial outcome? What changes
(if any) should be considered?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with photographs being excluded from
the exception for news reporting? What changes (if any) should
be
considered?
|
What other problems (or benefits), if any, have you experienced with the
exception for reporting current events? What changes (if
any) should be
considered?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the exception for incidental
copying of copyright works? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the exception transient
reproduction of works? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
What are the problems (or benefits) with the way the copyright exceptions
apply to cloud computing? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Are there any other current or emerging technological processes we should
be considering for the purposes of the review?
|
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
|
What problems (or benefits) are there with copying of works for
non-expressive uses like data- mining. What changes, if any, should
be
considered?
|
What do problems (or benefits) arising from the Copyright Act not having an
express exception for parody and satire? What about the absence of an exception
for caricature and pastiche?
|
What problems (or benefit) are there with the use of quotations or extracts
taken from copyright works? What changes, if any, should
be considered?
|
Do you have any specific examples of where the uncertainty about the
exceptions for libraries and archives has resulted in undesirable
outcomes?
Please be specific about the situation, why this caused a problem and who it
caused a problem for.
|
Does the Copyright Act provide enough flexibility for libraries and
archives to copy, archive and make available to the public digital content
published
over the internet? What are the problems with (or benefits arising
from) this flexibility or lack of flexibility? What changes (if
any) should be
considered?
|
Does the Copyright Act provide enough flexibility for libraries and
archives to facilitate mass digitisation projects and make copies of physical
works
in digital format more widely available to the public? What are the
problems with (or benefits arising from) this flexibility or
lack of
flexibility? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Does the Copyright Act provide enough flexibility for libraries and
archives to make copies of copyright works within their collections for
collection management
and administration without the copyright holder’s
permission? What are the problems with (or benefits arising from) this
flexibility
or lack of flexibility? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
What are the problems with (or benefits arising from) the flexibility given
to libraries and archives to copy and make available content
published online?
What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
What are the problems with (or benefits arising from) excluding museums and
galleries from the libraries and archives exceptions?
What changes (if any)
should be considered?
|
Does the Copyright Act provide enough flexibility to enable teachers,
pupils and educational institutions to benefit from new technologies? What are
the
problems with (or benefits arising from) this flexibility or lack of
flexibility? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Are the education exceptions too wide? What are the problems with (or
benefits arising from) this? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Are the education exceptions too narrow? What are the problems with (or
benefits arising from) this? What changes (if any) should
be considered?
|
Is copyright well understood in the education sector? What problems does
this create (if any)?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the free public playing
exceptions in sections 81, 87 and 87 A of the Copyright Act? What changes (if
any) should be considered?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way the format shifting
exception currently operates? What changes (if any) should
be considered?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way the time shifting
exception operates? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the reception and retransmission
exception? What alternatives (if any) should be considered?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the other exceptions that relate
to communication works? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Are the exceptions relating to computer programmes working effectively in
practice? Are any other specific exceptions required to
facilitate desirable
uses of computer programs?
|
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
|
Do you think that section 73 should be amended to make it clear that the
exception applies to the works underlying the works specified in section 73(1)?
And should the exception be limited to copies made for personal and private use,
with copies made for commercial gain being excluded?
Why?
|
What problems (or benefits) are there in allowing copyright owners to limit
or modify a person’s ability to use the existing
exceptions through
contract? What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
What are problems (or benefits) with the ISP definition? What changes, if
any should be considered?
|
Are there any problems (or benefit) with the absence of an explicit
exception for linking to copyright material and not having a safe
harbour for
providers of search tools (eg search engines)? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Do the safe harbour provisions in the Copyright Act affect the commercial
relationship between online platforms and copyright owners? Please be specific
about who is, and how they are,
affected.
|
What other problems (or benefits) are there with the safe harbour regime
for internet service providers? What changes, if any, should
be
considered?
|
Is there a sufficient number and variety of CMOs in New Zealand? If not,
which type copyright works do you think would benefit from
the formation of CMOs
in New Zealand?
|
If you are a member of a CMO, have you experienced problems with the way
they operate in New Zealand? Please give examples of any
problems
experienced.
|
If you are a user of copyright works, have you experienced problems trying
to obtain a licence from a CMO? Please give examples of
any problems
experienced.
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the way the Copyright Tribunal
operates? Why do you think so few applications are being
made to the Copyright
Tribunal? What changes (if any) to the way the Copyright Tribunal regime should
be considered?
|
Which CMOs offer an alternative dispute resolution service? How frequently
are they used? What are the benefits (or disadvantages)
with these services when
compared to the Copyright Tribunal?
|
Has a social media platform or other communication tool that you have used
to upload, modify or create content undermined your ability
to monetise that
content? Please provide details.
|
What are the advantages of social media platforms or other communication
tools to disseminate and monetise their works? What are the
disadvantages? What
changes to the Copyright Act (if any) should be considered?
|
Do the transactions provisions of the Copyright Act support the development
of new technologies like blockchain technology and other technologies that could
provide new ways to disseminate
and monetise copyright works? If not, in what
way do the provisions hinder the development and use of new technologies?
|
Have you ever been impeded using, preserving or making available copies of
old works because you could not identify or contact the
copyright? Please
provide as much detail as you can about what the problem was and its
impact.
|
How do you or your organisation deal with orphan works (general approaches,
specific policies etc.)? And can you describe the time
and resources you
routinely spend on identifying and contacting the copyright owners of orphan
works?
|
Has a copyright owner of an orphan work ever come forward to claim
copyright after it had been used without authorisation? If so,
what was the
outcome?
|
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
|
What were the problems or benefits of the system of using an overseas
regime for orphan works?
|
What problems do you or your organisation face when using open data
released under an attribution only Creative Commons Licences?
What changes to
the Copyright Act should be considered?
|
How difficult is it for copyright owners to establish before the courts
that copyright exists in a work and they are the copyright
owners? What changes
(if any) should be considered to help copyright owners take legal action to
enforce their copyright?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with reserving legal action to
copyright owners and their exclusive licensees? What changes
(if any) should be
considered?
|
Should CMOs be able to take legal action to enforce copyright? If so, under
what circumstances?
|
Does the cost of enforcement have an impact on copyright owners’
enforcement decisions? Please be specific about how decisions
are affected and
the impact of those decisions. What changes (if any) should be considered?
|
Are groundless threats of legal action for infringing copyright being made
in New Zealand by copyright owners? If so, how wide spread
do you think the
practice is and what impact is the practice having on recipients of such
threats?
|
Is the requirement to pay the $5,000 bond to Customs deterring right
holders from using the border protection measures to prevent
the importation of
infringing works? Are the any issues with the border protection measures that
should be addressed? Please describe
these issues and their impact.
|
Are peer-to-peer filing sharing technologies being used to infringe
copyright? What is the scale, breadth and impact of this infringement?
|
Why do you think the infringing filing sharing regime is not being used to
address copyright infringements that occur over peer-to
peer file sharing
technologies?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the infringing file sharing
regime? What changes or alternatives to the infringing filing
share regime (if
any) should be considered?
|
What are the problems (or advantages) with the existing measures copyright
owners have to address online infringements? What changes
(if any) should be
considered?
|
Should ISPs be required to assist copyright owners enforce their rights?
Why / why not?
|
Who should be required to pay ISPs’ costs if they assist copyright
owners to take action to prevent online infringements?
|
Are there any problems with the types of criminal offences or the size of
the penalties under the Copyright Act? What changes (if any) should be
considered?
|
Do you think there are any problems with (or benefits from) having an
overlap between copyright and industrial design protection.
What changes (if
any) should be considered?
|
Have you experienced any problems when seeking protection for an industrial
design, especially overseas?
|
We are interested in further information on the use of digital 3-D printer
files to distribute industrial designs. For those that
produce such files, how
do you protect your designs? Have you faced any issues with the current
provisions of the Copyright Act?
|
Do you think there are any problems with (or benefits from) New Zealand not
being a member of the Hague Agreement?
|
93
94
95
96
97
|
Have we accurately characterised the Waitangi Tribunal’s analysis of
the problems with the current protections provided for
taonga works and
mātauranga Māori? If not, please explain the inaccuracies.
|
Do you agree with the Waitangi Tribunal’s use of the concepts
‘taonga works’ and ‘taonga-derived works’?
If not, why
not?
|
The Waitangi Tribunal did not recommend any changes to the copyright
regime, and instead
recommended a new legal regime for taonga works and mātauranga
Māori. Are there ways in which the copyright regime might
conflict with any
new protection of taonga works and mātauranga Māori?
|
Do you agree with our proposed process to launch a new work stream on
taonga works alongside the Copyright Act review? Are there any other Treaty of
Waitangi considerations we should be aware of in the Copyright Act review?
|
How should MBIE engage with Treaty partners and the broader community on
the proposed work stream on taonga works?
|
Annex 1: Reviews and changes to the
Copyright Act 1994
Review and timeframe
|
Description Notes and outcome
|
Removal of the ban Enabled the import of Following the initial
removal of the ban, a on parallel importing legitimate copyright works
(eg series of reviews led to a reintroduction of 1998-2016 books, CDs) without
the rights a temporary
ban on parallel imports for
holder’s permission films (and some other refinements). The
ban eventually lapsed in 2016.
|
Review of Copyright Act (new technologies)
2001 to 2008
|
The Act was reviewed in Incorporated new concepts and response to
changing international norms relating to technologies and the WIPO
communicating
copyright works and internet treaties (the making them available to the public
over Copyright Treaty and the the internet.
Performances and Also looked at ISP liability and ‘safe
Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) harbour’ provisions. The most
contentious which were agreed in 1996 was s92A which provided for the
and came into effect in 2002). termination of internet accounts for
repeat
infringement. This provision was suspended and did not come into force with
the rest of the Act (the review of this
provision is discussed below.)
|
Review of performers’ rights 2001 to 2003
|
In response to the WPPT, Performers’ rights in New Zealand have
considered whether to extend been quite narrow – only
the right not to the
performers’ rights regime. consent to their performance being
recorded. The WPPT provided a framework for performers in relation to the
distribution and playing of recordings of their performance
and provided
performers with moral rights.
Work discontinued in the absence of significant impetus for change.
However, once the CPTPP comes into force on 30 December 2018,
it will give
performers greater rights over the sound aspects of their performances in
accordance with
WPPT.
|
Review of commissioning rule 2006 to 2008
|
A bill was developed that The default rule is that when a third party would
give creators default commissions and pays for the creation
of a ownership of
commissioned work, that person owns the copyright for works (rather than the
person photographs, computer programs,
most who commissioned the work). artistic
works, films and sound recordings.
Parties can contract out of the commissioning rule.
The Copyright (Commissioning Rule) Amendment Bill was not enacted
following
change of government.
|
Review and timeframe
|
Description
|
Notes and outcome
|
Copyright Resale
|
A statutory regime was
|
Work discontinued and the Copyright
|
Royalties
|
developed within the
|
(Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill 2008
|
2006 to 2008
|
Copyright Act whereby a
|
was not enacted following change of
|
|
portion of sales of art works –
|
government.
|
|
after the first sale – would go
|
|
|
to the artist or their
|
|
|
descendants.
|
|
Review of Section
|
Section 92A included a
|
Section 92A aimed to deter file-sharing and
|
92A / Introduction of
|
provision for the termination
|
was highly contentious.
|
‘three notice file
|
of internet accounts for repeat
|
Government instead introduced a file
|
sharing regime’
|
infringement (not brought into
|
sharing regime to respond to concern from
|
2009 to 2011
|
force).
|
music and film industry that piracy through
|
|
The review considered how
|
file sharing was widespread.
|
|
best to address the issue of
|
There were heated discussions around who
|
|
file sharing which resulted in
|
should bear the costs of the regime
|
|
replacing 92A with a three
|
(implementation and ongoing fees for
|
|
notice regime to notify users
|
sending a notice).
|
|
that behaviours are infringing.
|
The film industry has not used the
|
|
|
provision. Used by the music industry
|
|
|
initially, but no requests for ISPs to issue
|
|
|
notices since 2014.
|
Review of the
|
There was criticism that police
|
The review also looked at the enforcement
|
enforcement of
|
were not investigating
|
of trade mark infringement.
|
offences for copyright
|
copyright piracy. New powers
|
The powers have not been used, with very
|
piracy
|
were given to MBIE and the
|
few copyright and trade mark owners
|
2007 to 2011
|
police to investigate copyright
|
requesting State intervention.
|
|
piracy and importation of
|
|
|
pirated copyright works.
|
|
Trans-Pacific
|
The TPP Agreement
|
Would extend copyright term by 20 years
|
Partnership (TPP)
|
Amendment Act 2016 (TPPAA)
|
(in most cases to the life of the author plus
|
Implementation
|
was enacted, but will not
|
70 years).
|
2016
|
come into force until TPP
|
Introduced a more comprehensive regime
|
|
comes into force.
|
for TPMs (technological protection
|
|
|
measures) and a more comprehensive
|
|
|
performers’ rights regime.
|
Comprehensive and
|
CPTPP suspended certain
|
Amendments to extend the copyright term
|
Progressive
|
intellectual property
|
and to introduce a more comprehensive
|
Agreement for the
|
provisions in the TPP.
|
regime for TPMs enacted through TPPAA
|
Trans-Pacific
|
|
will not enter into force.
|
Partnership
|
|
|
BRM 4352
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZAHGovDP/2018/2.html