HL Deb 02 November 1988 vol 501 cc286-7

99 Clause 101, page 41, line 18, leave out 'or' and insert'— '(aa) that a named person was the owner of copyright in the film at the date of issue of the copies, or'.

100 Page 41. line 22, at end insert—

'(2A) In proceedings brought by virtue of this Chapter with respect to a computer program, where copies of the program are issued to the public in electronic form bearing a statement—

  1. (a) that a named person was the owner of copyright in the program at the date of issue of the copies, or
  2. (b) that the program was first published in a specified country or that copies of it were first issued to the public in electronic form in a specified year,
the statement shall be admissible as evidence of the facts stated and shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.'.

101 Page 41, line 23, leave out 'These' and insert 'The above'.

102 Page 41. line 25, at end insert—

'(4) In proceedings brought by virtue of this Chapter with respect to a film, where the film as shown in public, broadcast or included in a cable programme service bears a statement—

  1. (a) that a named person was the author or director of the film, or
  2. (b) that a named person was the owner of copyright in the film immediately after it was made,
the statement shall be admissible as evidence of the facts stated and shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.

This presumption applies equally in proceedings relating to an infringement alleged to have occurred before the date on which the film was shown in public, broadcast or included in a cable programme service.'.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 99 to 102.

There has been much debate over the presumptions which should apply in civil proceedings for copyright infringement. We recognised that the Bill as originally introduced into your Lordships' House went too far in providing that the court should presume generally that copyright subsists in the work in question and that the plaintiff is the owner of copyright until evidence was produced to the contrary. We therefore dropped that clause from the Bill. Those who have urged us to restore it have tended to overlook the fact that Clauses 100 and 101 make provision for presumptions which will greatly assist the copyright owner in establishing the critical questions of subsistence and ownership.

Broadly speaking, Clauses 100 and 101 provide that it is to be presumed that the name of the author and dates of publication appearing on a work are presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. Armed with these presumptions, subsistence and first ownership of copyright can be readily established. The amendments in this grouping will further assist copyright owners.

Amendments Nos. 99, 101 and 102, relate to the presumptions which apply in the case of films. Clause 101 can be strengthened in order to assist in the fight against piracy. The first point of concern is the lack of a presumption in subsection (2) about the owner of copyright in a film analogous to that in subsection (1)(a) in respect of sound recordings. Amendment No. 99 will rectify this by adding a further presumption to supplement the existing ones relating to the author and director.

The second deficiency in the presumptions in Clause 101 is that in many cases films remain unpublished, since copies are not issued to the public. Even in cases where copies are issued to the public in the form of videograms, this usually comes some time after cinema release and it is during the period before the issue of legitimate videos that the market for pirate videos is most buoyant. But if such a pirate is caught, the existing presumption in Clause 101 will not help. Amendment No. 102 recognises that many films have not been published and provides that where a film shown in public, broadcast or included in a cable programme service carries statements about the author, director or the initial owner of copyright in the film, such statements are presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.

I turn now to Amendment No. 100. We have come to recognise that the presumptions in Clause 100 may not be ideally suited to computer programs. These are literary works but their mode of exploitation is very different from books. The name of the author will normally appear on a book, but this is not normal practice in the case of a program. What is likely to appear is the name of the software house or company which owns copyright in the program, and in this respect programs are more akin to sound recordings and films than they are to literary works. Amendment No. 100 will provide the owners of copyright in computer programs with presumptions that are analogous to those which are applicable to records and videograms.

These amendments will be of considerable assistance, both to the rights owners in prosecution of cases against pirates and in reducing the burden on the courts. I commend Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 to the House.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 en bloc.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.