Nick Clegg’s Email to me re: Clause 43 in the Digital Economy Bill
Edit: It appears that the Lib dems have proposed an amendment which will negate most of the issues around clause 43, so my apologies to Nick Clegg on that one.
This does not alter the fact that huge swathes of the rest of the bill are deeply flawed, or the larger one of rushing through an un-debated bill in the wash up, after an election has been called, is utterly un-democratic and should not be supported by a party campaigning on electoral reform!
Original Post: The second email I received from my MP, Nick Clegg, regarding the Digital Economy Bill. Again, all emphasis is mine, relating to statements I do not feel were truthful after last night’s debate and the apparent support from his party for pushing the bill through in the wash up.
26 March 2010
Smit091/3
Dear Mr Smith
Thank you for writing to me regarding the Digital Economy Bill and the new rules it creates for the handling of orphan works.
An ‘orphan work’ is defined by the Intellectual Property Office as a work “protected by copyright in circumstances where the copyright holder cannot be traced - even after a diligent good faith search has been carried out - and hence the copyright work cannot be used without infringing copyright.”
Estimates suggest that, across the UK’s public sector, over 50 million orphan works exist. The British Library puts the figure at over 40% of existing works. We believe it is unacceptable that such a wealth of material goes unused. A commonly cited example are the thousands of photographs of servicemen taken in the First and Second World Wars, a significant part of our heritage, which the British Library is unable to digitise and make accessible online. Other examples include oral histories, personal letters, films and drawings which are held by libraries, museums and archives that have no right to make them accessible. We accept that there should be a way to make such works usable even when the owners cannot be traced.
Currently, the only way to use an orphan work is without authorisation. Should an owner later come forward, the only way for them to seek redress is to sue. This can be a lengthy and expensive process. The Digital Economy Bill creates bodies to licence these orphan works in exchange for payment. These payments are then held for the copyright owner, so owners can more easily discover if their works are being used and seek payment without having to sue.
Many photographers have contacted us about the new arrangements and we have been working with them to address their concerns. Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones recently challenged the government in debate over the issues photographers have raised.
Lord Clement-Jones pointed out that, under the new rules, photographers might have much less control over their works; that they could no longer offer exclusive use of their images or refuse permission if their work is to be used in a way they disagreed with; that the new rules may breach EU law; that a distinction should be made between the commercial and non-commercial use of works, with commercial works to be excluded if necessary; and that deliberate misidentification of works as orphaned must carry a severe sanction.
The government conceded many of our points, and have assured us that excluding some types of photography will be possible if necessary. The full text of the debate can be found here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100308-0008.htm
Although we want to help educational establishments and others who wish to legitimately use orphan works, the Liberal Democrats believe photographers’ rights to be absolutely imperative as well. Safeguards must exist to protect their work. If the only way to do this is by excluding commercial photography from the new scheme altogether, then we will be prepared to call for this.
I hope this has explained my position on this issue. Thank you again for writing to me on this topic.
Yours sincerely
Nick Clegg MP
