UK Copyright Law - more stuff freed & available.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by latepaul

It appears the rights owner gets the license fees paid for use. They are probably only going to have a small proportion of rights holders coming forward so the thing is not going to be a net cost to the taxpayer.

I agree that they rights owners will only get the fee paid for the actual use, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking who pays the fee - the person using the work, or (in effect) the taxpayer?

I also agree that only a very small number of rights owners are going to come forward. And, even then, I suspect the amount they get paid will be fairly trivial. But I don't see how that leads to your conclusion that there "is not going to be a net cost to the taxpayer".

But I don't want to make a big issue of this point. I only raised it out of curiosity.

Mike

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I agree that they rights owners will only get the fee paid for the actual use, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking who pays the fee - the person using the work, or (in effect) the taxpayer?

I also agree that only a very small number of rights owners are going to come forward. And, even then, I suspect the amount they get paid will be fairly trivial. But I don't see how that leads to your conclusion that there "is not going to be a net cost to the taxpayer".

But I don't want to make a big issue of this point. I only raised it out of curiosity.

Mike

There is a precedent for a fairly similar situation, which was when the UK extended copyright term from "Life+50" to "Life+70" years, and so 20 years'-worth of work that had been in the public domain once again became protected by copyright. What happened then is that everyone who was making use of material that re-entered copyright was permitted to carry on using it, but had to pay a (small) fee to the copyright holder.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I agree that they rights owners will only get the fee paid for the actual use, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking who pays the fee - the person using the work, or (in effect) the taxpayer?

The license fee is the fee paid by the person wanting the license i.e. it's the person using the work.

So to summarize(*):

• you can now apply for a non-exclusive, 7-year (renewable), UK-only, right to use an orphaned work
• to do so you make an application and pay a fee (fee depends on how many works you want to use and what kinds they are)
• Intellectual Property Office aims to process your application in 10 working days
• If during that time a rights holder comes forward application is rejected and normal copyright rules apply
• if rights holder comes forward after that time then they receive all the fees associated with that work
• once this has happened, no new licenses will be issued but existing ones continue until the end of their term

So it functions as a kind of escrow if someone does come forward. However they're getting a fee based on some generic scale not what they perhaps could have negotiated themselves but that's a reasonable downside and a fair disincentive to not let your works fall into orphan status in the first place.

(*my understanding, which may be wrong, source here, which trainboy first posted)

[ETA] My point about the taxpayer is that I would think you only need a small proportion of the works to stay orphaned for the for fees to cover the administration costs.

[Mike L]

An excellent summary, Latepaul. Thank you.

You say you pay a fee at the time of the application. The source you quoted says "The cost of getting a licence includes an application fee and a licence fee" (my italics). That suggests that the "application fee" is for the administrative cost, and the licence fee goes into a fund from which the IPO will pay the claims. Assuming that only a small proportion of rights holders will come forward (as you originally suggested), that in turn suggests that the fee that the applicant pays will be a lot less than the amount received by the rights holder. So you were right in saying there will be no net cost to the taxpayer.

Mike

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There is a precedent for a fairly similar situation, which was when the UK extended copyright term from "Life+50" to "Life+70" years, and so 20 years'-worth of work that had been in the public domain once again became protected by copyright. What happened then is that everyone who was making use of material that re-entered copyright was permitted to carry on using it, but had to pay a (small) fee to the copyright holder.

I didn't know that. Thanks for enlightening me.

Me

[Araucaria]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sure they can. If someone dies without leaving a will, and no heirs can be found, the value of their estate goes to the Treasury.

I'm reluctant to disagree with such a respected member of the forum as you, Harry, but if you happen to die intestate and without apparent heirs in the Duchy of Cornwall or Duchy of Lancaster, then someone else gets first dibs......
either the Duke of Lancaster (Mrs Windsor) or the Duke of Cornwall (Chuck).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Araucaria

I'm reluctant to disagree with such a respected member of the forum as you, Harry, but if you happen to die intestate and without apparent heirs in the Duchy of Cornwall or Duchy of Lancaster, then someone else gets first dibs......
either the Duke of Lancaster (Mrs Windsor) or the Duke of Cornwall (Chuck).

Yes, those are the exceptions, but what I said is true for the vast majority of the country.