The issue of how copyright is operating in the digital age is being reviewed not only in Australia, but also at an international level. In July this year, Richard Hooper CBE and Dr Ros Lynch released a report, Copyright Works – Streamlining copyright licensing for the digital age, which discusses options for improving licensing processes in the digital era. Hooper was appointed by the UK Government to lead a review into the feasibility of establishing a cross-sectoral Digital Copyright Exchange following recommendations made by Professor Ian Hargreaves in the 2011 Hargreaves Report [1].

The first phase of the Hooper Review was completed earlier this year and involved investigation into whether copyright licensing is presently fit for the digital age. In the report Rights and Wrongs published in March this year, Hooper concludes that on the whole, it is not [2]. The report states that in comparison with other countries, the UK’s licensing processes fare well. However, it also says that much could be improved. In particular, some of the outstanding issues identified with current licensing processes include:

• Complexity of licensing processes

• Complexity in terms of the organisations that provide licences

• Imbalance between what is available in digital formats, and what is available in physical formats

• Difficulty in obtaining information about who owns what rights in which country

• A lack of common standards in terms of expressing, identifying and communicating rights information across sectors and between nations [3].

The recently released second phase report then poses some suggestions for improvement to the way copyright licensing is carried out. It states that while there have been improvements in this area since the release of the Hargreaves review, there is “no room for complacency. The drive to streamline licensing processes further will be a constant for the creative and internet industries in the years to come” [4].

In particular, the Report emphasises the importance of improving rights data management in order to better facilitate the licensing process [5].

The Report is also supportive of the establishment of a UK-based “Copyright Hub” where copyright owners can choose to register their works if they wish, and where copyright licensees can go (as a first point of call) to obtain licences. It’s proposed that the Hub will link to national and international copyright exchanges, rights registries and other rights related databases so that information is centrally available through one source.

The Report also states that a focus of the Hub will be on facilitating a high volume of low value copyright transactions (as opposed to larger end, high value deals which are negotiated independently). Examples of the sorts of transactions envisaged that the Hub might facilitate include a user posting a video on YouTube, a small start-up wanting to use text and images, or a publisher wanting to use a diagram in a publication [6]. The idea behind facilitating smaller transactions is that many of these situations may not be licensed due to difficulties faced in obtaining licenses for small values. Yet, in theory, if such licenses could easily be obtained, the volume of licensing should amount to a worthwhile return for rights holders.

The Hub will also, amongst other things, be the place to go for copyright education and to assist people with direction on where they can obtain further information if necessary.

In the addition to making improvements to rights data information, and facilitating small cost transactions, the Report also encourages the copyright industries to continue efforts to develop new, streamlined licensing models. The Report discusses the concept of “Repertoire Imbalance” – the idea that if a particular work is not available online, the temptation will be to locate an illegal copy. It suggests that if the imbalance between what is available in physical formats and what is available digitally is rectified, the perception by users that there is a problem in terms of availability (such that copyright infringement can be “justified”) will be counteracted.

The Report notes that going forward, the creative industries have agreed, in principle, to fund an office to continue work on coordinating cross-sector and cross-boarder licensing initiatives for one year at the first instance [7]. It will be interesting to watch this space to see what further developments ensue.

This is not the only project of its kind to suggest a centralised system for copyright licensing and rights information storage. In Australia, for example, Professor Michael Fraser has carried out extensive work into investigating his idea for a National Content Network [8].

The idea behind a centralised system for copyright licensing is in theory very attractive. In particular, if fully operational, centralised licensing hubs could serve to improve the volume of licensing carried out, particularly where no pre-existing licensing mechanism is available in relation to the exercise of the particular rights.

Such systems are also often posited as a solution to orphan works problems. It is the practicality of coordinating the interests of rightsholders both across sectors and across jurisdictions that poses the biggest challenge to such recommendations being implemented.

Read the second phase Report here:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/dce-report-phase2.pdf

[1] Professor Ian Hargreaves. Digital Opportunity: A review of intellectual property and growth, May 2011. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-finalreport.pdf

[2] Richard Hooper CBE. Rights and Wrongs: Is copyright licensing fit for purpose in the digital age?, March 2012. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/dce-report-phase1.pdf

[3] Rights and Wrongs, at 7

[4] Richard Hooper CBE and Dr Ros Lynch. Copyright Works – Streamlining copyright licensing for the digital age, July 2012, at 1.

[5] Copyright Works, at 10

[6] Copyright Works, at 2 and 20

[7] Copyright Works, at 5

[8] http://clcuts.blogspot.com.au/