The Gazette 1992

GAZETTE

JUNE 1992

Re:

Review of

Copinger and Skone

James on Copyright,

Gazette, March

1992

Dear Editor,

I wish to disagree with James Hickey

who reviewed the 13th edition of

Copinger and Skone James on

Copyright

in the March 1992 issue

of the Gazette where he stated that

"the law was very much the same in

Ireland as in the UK" until the

passage of the Copyright, Designs

and Patents Act, 1988. I disagree

also with his statement that "the

only substantial difference between

the Irish 1963 Act and the UK 1956

Act was that the Irish government

declined to create a Performing

Rights Tribunal".

I shall confine my remarks to what

is, in my view, a very important

difference, from a librarian's

viewpoint. Section 7 of the UK

permitted special exceptions from

infringement of copyright for

libraries which were elaborated upon

in the UK Copyright (Libraries)

Regulations 1957 (S.I. 1957 No. 868)

(revoked). The Irish Copyright Act

1963 does not grant any special

exceptions to libraries other than in

section 12 (6) as elucidated by the

Works) Regulations 1964 (S.I. No.

180 of 1964). These regulations relate

to unpublished manuscripts as

specified therein and are, therefore,

more the concern of the archivist.

The uncertainty which the said

omission causes in relation to the

copying of works by libraries

(photocopying, especially) in the

Republic of Ireland means that these

institutions need to pay particular

attention to this matter when

providing access to their collections

notwithstanding the general

exceptions to infringement

concerning copyright material

common to both the Irish 1963 Act

and the UK 1956 Act (repealed). (See

Whale, R.F. and Phillips, Jeremy J.

Whale on copyright.

3rd. ed.

Oxford: ESC Publishing, 1983, in

support).

Yours faithfully,

Hugh M. Fitzpatrick

BCL, MLIS, (NUI), M.Phil.

(Cantab.),

Solicitor, Dip. Lib., ALAI,

St. Edmunds College,

Cambridge.

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your letter of the 2nd

April 1992 enclosing a copy of letter

dated 25th March 1992 from Mr.

Hugh M. Fitzpatrick of St.

Edmund's College, Cambridge.

I do of course stand over my own

views as to the only substantial

difference between the Copyright

Act, 1963 of the Republic of Ireland

and the Copyright Act, 1956 of the

United Kingdom, though taking Mr.

Fitzpatrick's point into account, I

think the word 'substantive' rather

than 'substantial' might have made

my point clearer.

It is true to say that Section 7 of the

UK Copyright Act, 1956 (with the

exception of subsection (6)) was not

reproduced in the Copyright Act,

1963. Following the different section

numbering in the 1963 Act it should

have fallen between Sections 12 and

13. It is interesting to note that

Section 12 (6) of the 1963 Act does in

fact reproduce the substance of

Section 7 (6) of the 1956 Act and no

equivalent of Section 12 (6) of the

1963 Act appears in the equivalent

Section 6 of the 1956 Act.

What I believe happened in the 1963

Act was that the Irish parliamentary

draftsman took the view that Section

7 of the 1956 Act was too detailed

and complex for the Irish context

and that the matter was sufficiently

covered by Section 12 (1) which

allows for fair dealing with a literary

dramatic or musical work for the

purposes of research or private study

or criticism or review. They did of

course preserve Section 7 (6) as

Section 12 (6) as indicated above as

this was clearly regarded as

important to include in the 1963

Act.

I have to confess that as a

practitioner in Ireland in the areas of

any great concern on the part of

libraries and educational institutions

in Ireland on the question of

breaches of copyright arising from

the photocopying of literary

dramatic or musical works in their

collections. Unlike the United

Kingdom there is no system in place

for the protection of literary works

in this regard though I understand

that efforts are now being made to

establish a literary copyright

collection society in Ireland which

would be similar in its operation to

the Irish Music Rights Organisation

the local equivalent of the

Performing Rights Society in the

United Kingdom.

What such a literary copyright

collection society would do would

be, of course, to charge libraries and

other institutions where such

photocopying of literary works went

on, on the basis of a blanket annual

fee to allow photocopying to be

conducted of all works which the

literary copyright collection society

controlled without reference to the

specific owners of that copyright.

This would be in the same way that

IMRO/PRS charge places of public

resort for the use of so-called piped

music as part of their service to

customers.

159