UK IPO calls for evidence on 2014 copyright regulations

Earlier this week, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) published a call for evidence on the implementation of new copyright regulations introduced in 2014 (see here for the call in full). The UK IPO invites stakeholders affected by these changes to come forward and submit evidence of their experience (see below the exhaustive list of themes included in the review). If you fall in within this category, you have until 10 April 2019 to let your voice be heard! Read on for more. 

The call for evidence 

The UK IPO invites different groups of stakeholders to respond on three specific themes: 

(1) The archive exception
(2) Other copyright exceptions, including (a) research and private study, text and data mining, education; (b) public administration; (c) quotation, and parody, caricature and pastiche;
(3) Extended collective licensing and orphan works [see here for more on extended licensing]

On the archive exception 

Galleries, libraries, archives, museums and archivists are invited to share their experience on their use of the copyright exemption for archiving and preservation purposes: “[H]as the presence of the exception changed your approach to dealing with preservation of copyright works?”. And, “how much time or resource has been spent determining commercial availability of works?” 

In addition, rightsholders are asked to contribute to the call by sharing their perspective on whether they have “experienced a loss of income as result of not being able to monetise your works because of the exception for archiving and preservation” amongst other things. 

On other copyright exceptions 

This second theme covers a much broader spectrum of questions and stakeholder groups as it includes a wider range of exceptions. It invites any stakeholders affected by the exceptions on research and private study, text and data mining, education; public administration; and, quotation, and parody, caricature and pastiche, to submit evidence about their experience of the 2014 copyright changes. This may concern anyone from creators, to public bodies or content publishers – individual and organisations alike. 

The questions will vary depending upon the exception at hand but the key themes remain-- “have or your organisation/institution used this exception?” and “what has been the cost/benefit of this exception to you?”. 

On extended collective licensing and orphan works 

credits:R. Austin
Questions pertaining to the implementation of regulations on extended collective licensing and on orphan works are split into two sub-themes, each speaking to different stakeholder groups. The UK IPO is interested in hearing from extended collective licensing organizations and rightsholders of the content made available via extended collective licensing. As regards measures on orphan works, the UK IPO calls on rightsholders of those orphan works [but see below], and the users of the orphan works scheme, to share their experience of the reform. 

This Kat wonders how many rightsholders of orphan works [which are no longer ‘orphan’ by that point] will contribute to the call for evidence. The level of response from these rightsholders, together with the evidence submitted to the UK IPO, may give us an indication of how many “parents” of copyright works will have been identified via this scheme since its implementation. 

Also on the question of orphan works, it will be interesting to compare notes between the evidence submitted to the UK IPO and the responses gathered by the Australian IPO in their 2018 consultation (see previous post here). 

Themes not included in the call for evidence

UK IPO stresses that the following themes will not be reviewed and gives reasons as to why: 

(1) Codes of conduct for collective management organisations [because “these regulations were revoked following implementation of the Collective Rights Management Directive] ; 

(2) Private copying exception [because Section 28B of the CPDA, which implemented the exception in 2014, was quashed by the High Court in 2015 for failing to provide rightsholders with fair compensation thereby breaching minimum levels of protection guaranteed to authors under EU law (decision : R (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and others) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 2041 (Admin), 17 July 2015); previous post here

(3) Disability exception [because “this exception was updated by the Marrakesh Treaty Directive for which new impact data was collected”]. 

How to respond? 

The call for evidence is organized within the context of a process of “post-implementation review”, or PIR for short (for more on PIRs see here). Evidence must be submitted by the relevant stakeholders (as outlined in the Call for Evidence) to the relevant questions and themes, in accordance with the 'Guide to Evidence for Policy'
This call for evidence will be open for 10 weeks and will close on 10 April 2019. Responses can be submitted by email ( or by post at the following address: 

Copyright Directorate 

Intellectual Property Office

4 Abbey Orchard Street


UK IPO calls for evidence on 2014 copyright regulations UK IPO calls for evidence on 2014 copyright regulations Reviewed by Mathilde Pavis on Saturday, February 02, 2019 Rating: 5


  1. Re: Orphan Works

    As at one year ago (1 Feb 2018) the IPO had received no contact from rightsholders reclaiming their rights. There had been 4 separate instances where third parties had offered information concerning the identity of some rightsholders, but this in itself was insufficient to trigger any action by the IPO to alter the orphan works licences concerned.

  2. I just wonder what will eventually happen to the unclaimed money paid to the IPO in respect of orphan rights. Bet your life the the Treasury will find some way of getting its hands on it.

  3. @ex-examiner.

    Regulation 13 explains what should happen to any unclaimed licence fees after 8 years have elapsed from the granting of the licence:

    "Unclaimed licence fees of orphan works

    13.—(1) Where more than 8 years have elapsed since the grant of an orphan licence and no right holder in the orphan work has identified themselves, the authorising body shall apply the licence fee, received by it in respect of that orphan licence, to pay the reasonable costs which the authorising body has incurred in connection with the orphan works scheme, including the setting up and running of the scheme.

    (2) To the extent that the licence fees referred to in paragraph (1) constitute a surplus over the reasonable costs of the authorising body, the authorising body may apply the surplus to fund social, cultural and educational activities.

    (3) If a right holder in an orphan work identifies themselves to the authorising body more than eight years after the grant of the orphan licence and satisfies the authorising body of their identity and of their ownership of relevant rights in the orphan work, the authorising body may make such payment to the right holder as the body considers reasonable in all the circumstances of the case."

    As you are no doubt aware, an orphan works licence is only valid for an initial period of 7 years. So unless a licence has been renewed, from the eight year point, protection from liability for infringement provided by the licence will have ceased to apply and any returning rightsholder will once more be able to sue for infringement should the work concerned continue to be exploited by the former licence owner.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.