REQUIREMENT THAT RIGHT BE ASSERTED (Hansard, 25 July 1988)

§ Mr. Fisher
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 30, line 19, leave out from 'public' to end of line 21.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 30, line 22, after 'public', insert 'otherwise than by broadcasting or including it in a cable programme service'.

§ Mr. Fisher
As Ministers know only too well, we are staunch supporters of the importance of moral rights. We shall be advancing that support when we come to support amendment No. 11. There are circumstances, however, where moral rights are impracticable, and we believe that the case that has been made by broadcasters—I understand that the Government are aware of it—is one such example. If clause 76(4)(a) stands, broadcasters filming a programme of pictures or sculptures for an arts programme would be obliged to identify at the end of the programme every artist and every work that has passed in front of the camera.

§ Mr. Butcher
I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) tabled the amendment. Opposition Members devoted much time in Committee to trying to strengthen the moral rights of authors, but are now suggesting that we considerably weaken them. They are singling out one group of authors whose cause they have hitherto championed—photo-graphers. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 seek to deprive the authors of artistic works of the right to be identified when their works are broadcast or included in a cable programme service. I assume that the amendments have been tabled on behalf of broadcasters who are concerned about identifying photographers whose works are included in television and cable programmes.
In Committee, I explained our reluctance to introduce any further exceptions to moral rights. We feel that we have gone far enough to meet the concerns of users of copyright works who feared that their normal business practices would be turned upside down by the new moral rights. The Bill already provides that, first, the paternity right does not apply to employees. It would not even arise in the case of a photographer employed by a broadcaster. Secondly, clause 78(5) disapplies moral rights in respect of 177 any work made for the purpose of reporting current events. This would include a photograph taken to illustrate a news item.
For works made by freelance authors for non-current affairs programmes, there are further safeguards. The paternity right has to be asserted formally by the author concerned before it can be effective, and there is always the possibility of agreeing to a waiver of the right. These provisions offer plenty of scope for broadcasting organisations to reach satisfactory contractual arrangements with freelance photographers.
The amendments pick on one group of authors for rather unfair treatment. I cannot see why the author of a literary work—such as a poem recited on television— should enjoy the paternity right when the author of the photographs broadcast to illustrate the poetry should not. I believe that they should be treated in the same way. Television is a very important medium for authors, as it offers a unique opportunity to reach a wider audience. It would be unfair to take this opportunity away from photographers without very good reasons. I am not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman that there are difficulties for broadcasters in the Bill, and, regrettably, I must therefore resist the amendments.

§ Mr. Fisher
It is late, and I accept that it is confusing when there are so many amendments. The Minister's brief to resist the case of photographers was a good one, but I was not making a case on behalf of photographers.
Visual images are referred to in line 20 of clause 76, which amendment No. 9 seeks to delete. A broadcast for "Arena" or a similar arts programme, which showed in front of a camera a series of sculptures or paintings, would be a visual images broadcast. If the clause stands unamended, the moral rights of all artists involved would have to be recognised, and at the end of the programme there would have to be a long and tedious list of every artist represented in the documentary or programme. Surely that cannot be the Government's intention. I accept what the Minister has said about photographs, but could he deal with works of art that are broadcast during a television programme?

§ Mr. Butcher
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's indulgence, especially at this time in our proceedings. I do not know whether the particular category I was referring to was the one that he wished me to deal with, but I did mention the point about waivers. I said that alternative arrangements could be made. It is a question of presumptions in the Bill. I believe that the arguments that I have adduced for one category are pertinent for the category that he mentioned.