Intellectual property legislation is structured around a fundamental conflict, which involves the

balancing of the copyright owners private rights with the rights of the public. The entire body of
copyright law is, to a large extent a balancing exercise, which attempts to accommodate both
these contradictory goals. Traditionally, the courts have utilized various statutory and common
law methods of reconciling the need to secure economic return to the copyright owner and the
need to safeguard public access to protected information. One of the most cited justifications for
the existence of intellectual property rights is the protection of the intellectual and economic
interests of the holder of the intellectual property rights. However, there is also a clear public
interest in being able to access and use copyrighted materials, which must be balanced against
the interests of the copyright holder. It focuses on the question of in what circumstances the
public is permitted under UK law to make use of copyrighted materials1. We will critically analyze
these exceptions to the rules relating to copyright infringement with regards the balance they
strike between the economic and intellectual rights of the owners rights and the publics access
to copyrighted information. We will then go on to examine other developments in UK copyright
law that arguably strengthen the position of the copyright holder vis--vis the public, and will
argue that the law of copyright in the UK currently strikes an acceptable balance between
protecting the rights of the copyright holder and allowing the public access to copyrighted
information2.

The law relating to copyright is contained in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 3, which
contains a number of circumstances in which the use of copyrighted material will be permitted,
otherwise known as the permitted acts4. These permitted acts are defences to copyright
infringement, but there are also a number of other defences to copyright infringement that are

1
Cornish, William; Llewelyn, David; Aplin, Tanya (2010). Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks
and Allied Rights. 7th ed.London, Sweet & Maxwell.
2
Landes, W.M. and Posner, R. A., (1989) An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, Journal of Legal Studies. Vol:
18. Page: 330
3
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents [Accessed on 02.04.2017]
4
https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/ipandit/document/393990/55YX-NS31-F18F-K3KV-00000-
00/Copyright_permitted_acts_and_defences [Accessed on 02.04.2017]

Page | 1
not permitted acts, for example lack of jurisdiction, that the act done does not fall within the
restricted acts, or that copyright does not subsist in the work in question. We will however focus
on the permitted acts in analyzing whether the interests of the public in being able access
copyrighted works is fairly balanced against the rights of copyright holders under the law.
Perhaps the most commonly invoked defence to copyright infringement is that of the permitted
acts, contained in Chapter III of Part I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Chapter III
lists a number of situations in which copyrighted material may be published without infringing
copyright. These include the making in domestic circumstances of recordings for the purposes of
enabling the program to be watched at a later date (the time-shifting exception). In the cases of
acts that fall within Chapter III of the Act, it is not necessary to demonstrate that the use of the
copyright material amounted to fair dealing; it is sufficient simply to show that the acts fell within
one of the permitted uses. The existence of the permitted acts provisions within the Act is an
acknowledgement that in order to properly enjoy certain types of copyright material, the public
must be allowed a certain degree of latitude in the way in which they are able to access that
material. So for example, tape recording a radio show or television program in order to watch it
later in the day, or photocopying pages from a library reference book in order to use the
information to write an essay are all necessary acts in order for the public to be able to enjoy the
radio show, program or book. Allowing these acts under the law and acknowledging that they do
not amount to copyright infringement is evidence of the balance that the law seeks to achieve
between the rights of copyright holders and the public interest in being able to access copyright
works.

Moreover, in addition to the permitted acts exemptions from copyright protection, the CDPA
1988 also provides a defence of fair dealing against copyright infringement in the context of
reporting current events; Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of
reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is
accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement." Part of the rationale behind this aspect of the
fair dealing exception to copyright infringement is that it is almost always in the interest of the

Page | 2
public to be made aware of current events and what is happening in the word, for example
through news broadcasting. If the use of copyright material was completely excluded in such
situations there is a danger that this could prevent the dissemination of information, thus
reducing the public access to information about important current events.

Furthermore, in addition, it is not usually in the public interest for one person or company to
have exclusive copyrights over information or material in which the public has an interest in the
sense of desiring to access the information, since this can result in a monopoly situation in which
the holder of the copyright is able to use their exclusive right to exploit the copyright. A good
example of this is the copyright of broadcasting companies in major sporting events 5. As Tom
Simpson has noted, where a broadcaster has negotiated exclusive rights to show footage of a
sports or other event, it would not be in the public interest for that broadcaster to have a
complete monopoly over the footage." In the context of sporting events, the last major case
regarding what amounts to current events and what can be said to be fair dealing was the case
of British Broadcasting Corporation v. The British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd [1991]6. In that case
the BBC brought a case against BSB for copyright infringement on the basis that BSB had used
extracts from the BBC coverage of the 1990 World Cup finals in their broadcasting. The extracts
lasted between 14 and 37 seconds and were shown four times each on BSB programming in the
24 hours following each match, with the source of the programming acknowledged as being the
BBC. BSB raised the defence of fair dealing, which was accepted by the court. Mr. Justice Scott,
referring to Lord Dennings comments in Hubbard v Vosper [1972]7 stated that It is impossible
to define what is fair dealing" but, short extracts and long comments may be fair after all is
said and done, it must be a matter of impression the quality and quantity of BBC copyright
material used in each program seemed consistent with the nature of a news report and to be
no more than was reasonably requisite for a television news report " 8. As such, it seems as

5
Demsetz, H., (2009). Creativity and the Economics of the Copyright Controversy. Review of Economic Research
on Copyright, Issues 6(2). Page: 7
6
British Broadcasting Corporation v. The British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd [1991] 3 All E.R. 833
7
Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 Q.B. 84
8
http://swarb.co.uk/hubbard-v-vosper-ca-1971/ [Accessed on 04.04.2017]

Page | 3
though the courts have been willing to ascribe a fairly wide interpretation to the notion of fair
dealing, with the result that public access to protected information is generally fairly permissive.
In the context of the broadcast of sporting events, or other valuable footage this presents a
difficult balance to be struck: On the one hand, the price paid by broadcasters for the exclusive
right to broadcast significant events such as the World Cup is extremely high, and is based on the
fact that they and only they will be permitted to broadcast the event, ensuring themselves a large
audience share. To this extent, it is important for the law of copyright to protect the copyright
holders economic investment in the protected material by limiting the circumstances in which it
can be used by others without incurring penalties for breach of copyright. On the other hand,
there is a clear public interest both in being able to access significant events such as the World
Cup through a variety of sources, and also in being provided with choice as to the source they
choose to absorb the information through. It is submitted that the liberal judicial interpretation
of the fair dealing defence strikes a good balance between these competing considerations: The
rights of the copyright holder to broadcast the entire event as it occurs are protected, while the
right of the public to choose the source of their information is protected because they are able
to view short extracts through other providers.

The Chapter III of the Act stated exceptions and the exception of fair dealing in the UK as a mode
of balancing the interests of the public in accessing protected information and the rights of the
copyright holder can be contrasted with the fair use defence to copyright infringement in the
United States of America. The US doctrine of fair use derives from the First Amendment right to
freedom of speech under the US Constitution, and is contained in Sec 107 of the US Copyright
Act 19769. The fair use exception provides a general exception for any use of copyrighted material
that amounts to a fair use, and unlike the UK law which specifies a number of acts that are
permitted as fair dealing, the US law does not specify what acts will be considered fair use; the
decision as to whether an act amounts to fair use is a matter for the courts. In comparison to the
US law on fair use, the UK narrow list of permitted uses and fair dealing situations is therefore

9
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 [Accessed on 04.04.2017]

Page | 4
somewhat restrictive. Tony Ballard has noted with regards the difference between the UK and
US laws; Ultimately the two systems are aiming at the same objective, but in the United States
there is one section in the Copyright Act to establish the fair use principle and it is the courts
which are left to strike the balance by applying the principle in accordance with guidelines or
criteria set out in Sec 107. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, and indeed in Europe generally,
the balance is struck by the legislators themselves.10"

Here, it can be viewed as an example of how the UK law on copyright unfairly favors the rights of
copyright holders over those of the public in accessing copyright information. This being said, it
is not necessarily the case that the US system does in reality provide a more permissive system
for the use of copyright material by the public than the UK system does. Although the US system
appears to provide a more flexible system of allowing for the use of copyright material by the
public, when the decision as to what should constitute an acceptable use of copyright material is
left largely to the courts there is always a chance that the courts will interpret the law in a less
permissive way, thereby restricting the ability of the public to access protected works and
reinforcing the rights of the copyright holder. It is no coincidence that much of the copyright
litigation involving online files sharing has taken place in America, where the courts have
generally shown themselves to be unsympathetic to the plight of the public who have an interest
in accessing copyright material.

Meanwhile, one of the most controversial exceptions to the prohibition on copyright

infringement is the public interest exception, which allows the publication of copyrighted
material where to do so is in the public interest. Cases in which the public interest defence is
raised often involve the publication of copyrighted information that in some way embarrasses
the copyright holder or another person. For example, in Lion Laboratories Ltd v

10
D. Bainbridge (2012) Inellectual Property. Ninth Ed. England, Pearson Education Limited.

Page | 5
Evans [1984]11, the defendant newspaper wished to publish information relating to the reliability
of a piece of equipment used to measure blood alcohol levels. The claimant obtained an
injunction to prevent the defendant from publishing the information, on the basis that
publication would infringe copyright. The defendants appeal against the injunction succeeded
on the basis that they were entitled to raise the public interest defence to breach of copyright.
In reaching their decision the court were eager to stress that what was in the public interest was
not always the same as what the public was interested in. which is a key notion when assessing
the extent to which the public interest in being able to access protected information is protected
under copyright law. In general it seems that where the copyrighted material in question relates
to the public health or morals, the courts have generally been willing to accept that the public
interest in accessing the protected information overrides the copyright holders rights. For
example, in Beloff v Pressdram [1973]12, Ungoed Thomas J suggested that the circumstances in
which a public interest defence to copyright infringement would include the disclosure of
matters medically dangerous to the public."13

The court held in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [2000]14 that the CDPA 1988 does not give
the courts the power to enable an infringer to use anothers copyrighted material on the basis
that to do so would be in the public interest. However, the court in Yelland held that the court
did have an inherent jurisdiction to refuse to enforce copyright where to do so would offend
against the public interest. Yelland related to the publication of stills from a video surveillance
camera showing Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed leaving Mohammed Al Fayeds house the day
before they were killed in a car crash. The defendant raised the defences of public interest and
fair dealing for the purposes of reporting current events. Both arguments succeeded in the
Chancery Division, in which Jacob J noted that there were two forms of public interest defence;
that of denying copyright altogether, and that of acknowledging the existence of copyright, but

11
Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1984] 2 All ER 417
12
Beloff v Pressdram [1973] RPC 765
13
http://swarb.co.uk/lisc/IntlP19701979.php [Accessed in 15.04.2017]
14
Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [2000] RPC 604

Page | 6
raising public interest as a defence to infringement. However, when the case reached the Court
of Appeal, Jacob Js decision was overturned, and judgment was given in favor of the claimant for
copyright infringement, since there was no discernible public interest in publishing the
photographs.

Although it is unclear in what precise circumstances the courts will deem enforcement of
copyright to be offensive to the public interest, Aldous LJ in Yelland did list the circumstances in
which he thought a court would be justified in refusing to enforce copyright as being where the
work is,

(i) immoral, scandalous or contrary to public life;

(ii) injurious to public life, public health and safety or the administration of justice;
(iii) Incites others to act in a way referred to in (ii).

These circumstances indicate the types of circumstance in which the court will consider that the
balancing exercise between the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the public to
access information; Generally speaking the courts will only accept the defence of public interest
where the information contained in the copyrighted information has the potential to affect the
public in some way. This seems to strike the correct balance between the two sets of competing
rights; clearly copyright holders should not be entitled to rely on the copyright laws in order to
keep information in which the public has an interest and which may affect the public adversely
or enable the public to better protect themselves from harm. However, the public does not have
a right to access information simply on the basis that it is salacious or interesting to them where
doing so involves breaching the intellectual property rights of the copyright holder. By limiting
the use of the public interest defence to cases in which the relevant information has the potential
to affect the public the courts manage to strike a fair balance between the rights of the public
and the rights of the copyright holder. In addition to cases involving copyrighted material that
contains information relating to public health and circumstances in which the copyright holder
has in some way forfeited their rights, the public interest defence has also been successfully
invoked on the grounds of freedom of speech in defeating injunctions in cases in which the
Page | 7
defence of fair dealing is to be raised. For example, in Kennard v Lewis [1983]15, the claimant had
published a pamphlet entitled 30 Questions and Honest Answers about CND. The defendant
published a similar pamphlet entitled 30 Questions and Honest Answers about CND, with regards
which the claimant sought an interim injunction restraining publication. The defendant raised
the defence of fair dealing, and the court held that as a principle the court should not allow
injunctions against copyright infringement where to do so would restrain free speech or political
controversy.

So, balanced against the public interest justification for copyright infringement must be the
private interest of the copyright holder in protecting their right not to have private copyrighted
information made available to the public. In HRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers
Ltd [2006]16, Blackburne J acknowledged that an individual copyright holder should receive a
particularly high level of protection for their rights in cases in which the copyrighted material is
personal or sensitive such as a personal diary, as was the case in Associated Newspapers17. In
seeking to balance the rights of the public to access protected information and the rights of the
copyright holder it seems right that the weight attached to the rights of the copyright holder
should be greater in cases involving personal copyrighted information such as a diary, since the
public interest in accessing such information lies predominantly in its entertainment value rather
than in any actual need to know the information. In some cases, the acts of the copyright holder
will be such as to reduce the weight attached to their interests when balancing them against the
public interest in accessing copyrighted material. This will be the case where the copyright holder
has committed a criminal act in producing the copyrighted material, or where the material relates
to some wrongdoing on the part of the copyright owner. For example, in the Spycatcher case,
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1987]18, the House of Lords indicated that they
would refuse to enforce copyright in the Spycatcher novel because of the author, Peter Wrights,

15
Kennard v Lewis [1983] FSR 364
16
HRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 11 (Ch)
17
https://en.kromannreumert.com/Insights/2015/Protection-of-Personal-Data [Accessed on 17.04.2017]
18
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1248

Page | 8
behavior in divulging national secrets. This arguably indicates that in some circumstances the
copyright holders behavior can be such as to weaken or even negate their rights when balanced
against the information in which they hold copyrights.

We need to consider, the exceptions that can be invoked to justify an act that would otherwise
amount to a breach of copyright generally speaking represent concessions on the part of the law
to the public interest in being able to access and use information that is the subject of copyright
protection. However, in recent years there have been a number of developments in the field of
copyright that tend to suggest that the law is moving in the opposite direction in ascribing greater
rights to copyright holders as compared with the public. For example, the Copyright Designs and
Patents 1988 for the first time in UK law introduced the concept of moral rights for copyright
holders; previously such rights could only be enforced through the torts of defamation, passing
off and malicious falsehood. The author of copyright material now enjoys the following moral
rights; the right to be identified as the author or the director; The right to object to the derogatory
treatment of work; The right to object to the false attribution of work and; The right to privacy
of certain photographs and films. These rights are held only by the author of the work, and cannot
be transferred to anyone else, but can be waived with consent. The moral right to object to false
attribution lasts for 20 years after the death of the author, however the other moral rights last
for as long as copyright subsists in the work. The recognition in copyright law of the moral rights
of the author of work in which copyright lies is to some extent indicative of a strengthening of
the position of the copyright holder vis--vis the public, in that the copyright holder has attracted
a new set of rights. However, the nature of the moral rights are such that the relationship that is
most affected by the new rights is not the relationship between the public and the piece of
copyright work, but rather the relationship between any person to whom the author of the work
assigns copyright and the copyrighted work. The moral rights of the author prevent those who
purchase the copyright in a work from defacing the work, or claiming the work as their own or
someone elses. In this respect, the addition of moral rights to the catalogue of rights enjoyed by
the author of copyrighted material does not substantially affect the balance struck between the

Page | 9
rights of the author of copyrighted work and the public interest in accessing the copyrighted
information.

As one obvious alternative to the current copyright regime in the UK would be to simply relax
some of the existing modes of protection for copyright holders by, for example, reducing the
standard copyright term. However, another more extreme alternative to the current copyright
regime in the UK has been suggested by Lawrence Lessig, who favors the abolition of copyright
laws altogether. In his book, Free Culture, which is made available on the internet, Lessig argues
that copyright laws stifle creativity and rather than being utilized for the benefit of individual
authors and artists instead benefit only large corporations interested in profit
maximization. Although Lessigs argument is compelling from an emotional perspective, in reality
it is difficult to agree that dispensing with copyright laws altogether would be advisable or fair.
For those authors who do dedicate their energy and resources into producing original work it is
important to reward their efforts and their intellect by ensuring that it is possible for them to
make a profit from their exercises. If we were to dispense with copyright laws altogether it would
mean that for many aspiring authors and producers of copyright content the prospect of
producing works would be economically unviable since there would be no guarantee that if
successful their work would not simply be copied without their permission and they would
receive no financial return on their investment. This would be just as likely to stifle creativity, by
pricing potential creatives out of the market, as Lessig claims the current system does.

Meanwhile, the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA)19 was rushed into the statute books shortly
before the general election in May 2010, bringing with it a new regime designed to operate
alongside the existing measures available in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
with the purpose of reducing unauthorized file sharing. The Act was initially due to be
implemented by an Initial Obligations Code authored by Ofcom in late 2010, but has met with

19
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/contents [Accessed on 18.04.2017]

Page | 10
delay due to overwhelming academic and industry criticism that has culminated in a judicial
review initiated by internet service providers (ISPs) TalkTalk and BT. This paper provides a critical
review of the Act, and identifies flaws in the legislation regarding the proposed infringement
notification procedure, its associated subscriber appeals process and compatibility with EU law.
The impact of the recent case of MediaCAT v. Adams [2011]20 on the Act is considered in light of
the serious evidential issues raised within it that potentially bear a direct and significant impact
on the operation of the regime set up by the Act. It is concluded that the DEA should not be
implemented until it is subjected to considerable reform that will satisfactorily address the issues
raised in MediaCAT and the ongoing judicial review. As a piece of legislation designed to
implement the recommendations of the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property21, the legislature
has taken a one-sided view. Several recommendations relating to the enforcement of certain
powers desired and lobbied for by rights holders have been implemented in the Act, including
increasing the awareness of what is described as 'IP crime', the matching of penalties for online
infringement with physical infringement, and the removal and disbarring of internet users
'engaged in piracy'. However, the legislature has declined to implement any of the
recommendations designed to bring copyright law into line with the realities of the digital
economy, such as introducing a limited private copying exception to allow format shifting or
paving the way for a system of labeling products with DRM attached to them so that consumers
can identify when digital intellectual property they are purchasing is incompatible with certain
devices or requires an open internet connection to which they may not have access. Indeed, the
closest the legislature came to recognizing the true nature of the digital economy was with the
introduction of the clause making provision for the use of orphan works. However, the poor
drafting of the legislation and the brief amount of time available to discuss and amend the Act,
as well as the fact that no preparatory steps had been taken (such as the establishing of
'reasonable search' parameters and a voluntary copyright register, as recommended in the
Gowers Review), led to the clause being withdrawn before the Act was passed.

20
MediaCAT v. Adams [2011] EWPCC 6
21
A Gowers, Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (The Stationery Office, London 2006).

Page | 11
The most vocal bodies that have expressed support for the new legislation are the rights holders
and their lobbyists22. Those that are in opposition to the Act include ISP subscribers23 and their
representative consumer groups24, the ISPs that are concerned with the costs that they will incur
for regulations that will alienate their own customer base25, and the police and security service
who have both expressed concern that the effect the Act will have in persuading internet users
to routinely encrypt their internet use will make monitoring communications in their criminal law
enforcement roles more difficult26. There is nothing in this section of the Digital Economy Act that
recognizes or supports new digital business models. There is, however, an abundance of
provisions that preserve outmoded analogue business models that will, in their current form,
impede key areas of technological evolution such as the increasing reach of open WiFi. Yet the
lack of attention the Act received prior to its passing is now being made up for in post-legislative
scrutiny that could effectively paralyze its new regimes. For example, the ongoing judicial review
of the DEA has already served to delay the implementation of the finalized Initial Obligations
Code. If the monitoring obligations, technical measures and handling of data required by the Act
are eventually found not to be compatible with the corresponding European legal framework, or
if the measures are found to be disproportionate or contrary to human rights protections, key
sections of the Act could be rendered unenforceable.27

Moreover, a recent report from Professor Ian Hargreaves, has made 10 more major
recommendations to free up the restricted copyright law that obstruct innovation and economic
growth in the UK. Hargreaves indicated the need of an exception designed to build into the EU
framework adaptability to new technologies which would be designed to allow uses enabled by

22
A Liversage, 'BPI Heralds Landmark Digital Economy Act, 8 April 2010' (British Phonographic Industry
2010) http://www.bpi.co.uk/press-area/news-amp3b-press-release/article/bpi-heralds-landmark-digital-economy-
act.aspx [Accessed on 18.04.2017]
23
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100406/debtext/100406-0007.htm
24
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-sectors/docs/o/10-1131-online-copyright-infringement-
government-response [Accessed on 20.04.2017]
25
http://pressoffice.talktalk.co.uk/news/item/digital_economy_bill_cannot_protect_copyright/?phpMyAdmin=0f0a8
50a9f027986a254b43352595a5e [Accessed in 20.04.2017]
26
P Foster, 'MI5 Comes Out Against Cutting Off Internet Pirates' (The Times 2009)
27
http://ejlt.org/article/view/58/153 [Accessed on 21.04.2017]

Page | 12
technology of works in ways which do not directly trade on creative and expressive purpose of
work. Hargreaves went further in respect to the fair use rule and rejected its adoption on the fact
that Google and YouTube exploited US fair use law to build their digital aggregation websites
without fear of prosecution from using copyrighted content . Taking these to account the call for
copyright law changes are big, it is quite clear that the current regime there no way near to the
original idea of promoting creation of works. With the recent judgments of Infopaq and
Meltwater threatens to lower the threshold for infringement without considering the effect of
doing so. Uses such as parody and referencing as indicated in the previous chapters are in danger
of becoming infringements without the flexibility of suitable exceptions, and to have the
legislature known that the legislation would have that effect then is likely that pressure would
have been applied to review the exception regime28. Moreover the Infopaq ruling goes beyond
this for decades now no technology has changed in order to follow the law but rather is the law
that changes in order to reach technology. This is not the case in Infopaq; since what Infopaq
does is changing the technology in order to comply with the law by require users and services to
even pay for the web news. This ruling may also not stop here since there serious concerns that
the 11 words ruling will not only affect the news but probably also books in the future29.

So, the future of copyright cannot be defined since the future of Internet is still uncertain, but
obviously the law that governs us now will affect the things that will follow. As said repeatedly
copyright is not meant to grant to its right holders exclusive control of their work, but rather is a
bundle of rights designed to promote creativity for the public interest 30. In order for this to
achieve it requires to take steps the sooner in respect to the exceptions, since on one hand it can

28
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/may/18/hargreaves-report-recommends-overhaul-of-copyright-laws
[Accessed in 21.04.2017]
29
Burrell, Robert; Coleman, Allison (2005). Copyright Exceptions: The Digital Impact. New York,
Cambridge University Press.

30
Hector L MacQueen (2007) Copyright law reform: Some achievable goals? New Directions in Copyright
Law, Vol: 4. Page: 71

Page | 13
be said that right holders in Europe are protected even more from the US due to the broad
interpretation by the courts. However the legislators should review the exceptions in order to
have a copyright regime that will promote creation and is worth noting that by applying the
recommendations set out by Hargreaves it would add between 0.3% to 0.6% to the annual GDP
growth.

In conclusion, we have analyzed the various ways in which the UK law of copyright seeks to
protect the rights of copyright holders while also permitting an acceptable level of access to
protected works by the public. Although there are arguments to be made in favor of greater or
less protection for copyright holders in the UK, it is submitted that the analysis of this essay has
demonstrated that the current legal regime under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988
and the common law strike an acceptable balance between the moral, economic and privacy
rights of the copyright holder in protecting their intellectual and economic investments in the
copyrighted material. However, through the exception of permitted acts and the defences of fair
dealing and public interest the law also allows for public access to protected information in
circumstances in which the public interest in access outweighs the rights of the copyright holder,
such as in the case of fair dealing or public interest, or in cases in which acts that would otherwise
amount to a breach of copyright do not have a discernible negative impact on the copyright
holder, as in the case of permitted acts such as time-shifting.

Bibliography

Case:

o Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 Q.B. 84

o British Broadcasting Corporation v. The British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd [1991] 3 All E.R. 833

Page | 14
o Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1984] 2 All ER 417
o Beloff v Pressdram [1973] RPC 765
o Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [2000] RPC 604
o Kennard v Lewis [1983] FSR 364
o HRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 11 (Ch)
o Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1248
o MediaCAT v. Adams [2011] EWPCC 6

Statutes:
o The Copyright Designs and Patents Act (1988)
o The US Copyright Act (1976)
o The Digital Economy Act (2010)

Books:
o D. Bainbridge (2012) Inellectual Property. Ninth Ed. England, Pearson Education Limited.
o Cornish, William; Llewelyn, David; Aplin, Tanya (2010). Intellectual Property: Patents,
Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights. 7th ed.London, Sweet & Maxwell.
o Burrell, Robert; Coleman, Allison (2005). Copyright Exceptions: The Digital Impact. New York,
Cambridge University Press.

Journal Articles:

o Demsetz, H., (2009). Creativity and the Economics of the Copyright Controversy. Review of
Economic Research on Copyright, Issues 6(2).
o Landes, W.M. and Posner, R. A., (1989) An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, Journal of
Legal Studies. Vol: 18.
o Hector L MacQueen (2007) Copyright law reform: Some achievable goals? New Directions in
Copyright Law, Vol: 4

Page | 15
 Online Resources:

o http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents [Accessed on 02.04.2017]

o https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/ipandit/document/393990/55YX-NS31-F18F-K3KV-
00000-00/Copyright_permitted_acts_and_defences [Accessed on 02.04.2017]

o http://swarb.co.uk/hubbard-v-vosper-ca-1971/ [Accessed on 04.04.2017]

o https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 [Accessed on 04.04.2017]
o http://swarb.co.uk/lisc/IntlP19701979.php [Accessed on 15.04.2017]
o https://en.kromannreumert.com/Insights/2015/Protection-of-Personal-Data [Accessed on
17.04.2017]
o http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/contents [Accessed on 18.04.2017]
o https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100406/debtext/1004
06-0007.htm
o http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-sectors/docs/o/10-1131-online-copyright-
infringement-government-response [Accessed on 20.04.2017]

o http://pressoffice.talktalk.co.uk/news/item/digital_economy_bill_cannot_protect_copyrigh
t/?phpMyAdmin=0f0a850a9f027986a254b43352595a5e [Accessed on 20.04.2017]
o http://ejlt.org/article/view/58/153 [Accessed on 21.04.2017]
o https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/may/18/hargreaves-report-recommends-
overhaul-of-copyright-laws [Accessed on 21.04.2017]

Page | 16