Formalities:
whether Singapore should have a voluntary system of copyright registration, and
details associated with such a copyright registry [it is important to recall that the no formalities rule contained in Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention only
applies in an international - not domestic - context].
First
ownership: whether creators of certain
commissioned works should have first ownership of the copyright in the
works.
Duration: whether the duration of copyright protection for
unpublished works should be limited to : (i) 70 years after the death of the
creator for literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works, and (ii) 70 years
after first publication for sound recordings, cinematograph films and works
with an unknown creator if they are published within 50 years of creation,
failing which, they will only be protected for 70 years after creation.
Moral
rights: whether there should be a new right
of attribution, and details associated with this right [the answer to this should be yes, at least to comply fully with Article 6-bis of the Berne Convention -
Singapore joined the Berne Union in 1998].
Information: whether the relationship between creators and
publishers/producers can be helped by an information website for
creators.
Exceptions
and contractual override:
whether certain exceptions in the Copyright Act should be allowed to be
restricted by contractual terms, and which exceptions would those be [UK-based readers will promptly recall that the exceptions introduced
into the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act in 2014 - including parody, quotation and the now defunct private copying - prevent contractual
override].
Fair
dealing [Singapore introduced an open-ended exception akin to fair
use, yet called fair dealing, in 2010: see s35 of the Copyright Act]: whether the fifth factor (from the exception of
“fair use”), which relates to obtaining a copy of the work within a reasonable
time at an ordinary commercial price ["the
possibility of obtaining the work or adaptation within a reasonable time at an
ordinary commercial price"],
should be removed.
Orphan
works: whether orphan works should be
addressed by a limitation of remedies approach, a registry approach with
upfront fees, or a modified registry approach with fees paid direct to the
copyright owner.
Text
and data mining [a
specific exception for non-commercial uses was
introduced into UK law in 2014, and is currently under discussion for introduction at the EU level]: whether there should be a new exception for
copying of works for the purposes of data analysis to facilitate text and data
mining.
|
Billy has already started working on his responses, though he has not been
too productive so far |
Education: whether there should be a new exception for
giving or receiving instruction in the educational context, and whether the
threshold for copying by or on the premise of a non-profit educational
institution should be changed from 5% to 10%.
Libraries
and archives: whether the current exceptions for
libraries and archives should be simplified and redrafted.
Museums
and galleries: whether there should be new
exceptions for museums and galleries.
Disabilities [again, in the UK context, the relevant exception was broadened in 2014; in this article, among other things, I had argued that
the previous, limited, scope of the UK exception was contrary to EU law]: whether certain technical amendments should be
made in relation to provisions benefiting those who are blind, visually
impaired, or otherwise print disabled.
Government: whether there should be a new exception for
materials on official government registers.
TPMs:
whether the current list of allowable circumventions of technological
protection measures (TPMs) should be retained, and what new allowable
circumventions of technological protection measures should be put in place [this is not a minor point of the consultation: under review by the
Singapore Government there is in fact (and among other things) the lawfulness of using VPNs to circumvent
geo-blocks to access copyright content; the debate on VPNs is not limited to
Singapore, but it is rather being undertaken in
several countries, eg - recently - Australia].
Those interested in answering the public consultation can do so here, or by post to the following address:
Intellectual Property Policy Division
Ministry of Law
100 High Street
#08-02, The Treasury
Singapore 179434
Berne Article 5(2) is not a "no formalities" rule. It's a prohibition on formalities that affect "the enjoyment and the exercise" of copyright. U.S. law retains important formalities that are Berne-compliant. A copyright owner must register prior to the commence of infringement to be eligible for statutory damages and attorneys fees. And in fact formalities of this style, which affect the remedies available for infringement, but not the existence of rights or the ability to file a lawsuit, are generally Berne-compliant.
ReplyDelete