Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Brukskonstskydd i Storbritannien - ett rättsområde under förändring

Ivarsson, Sophie LU (2013) JURM02 20132
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Sektion 52 i Copyright Designs and Patents Act innebär att det upphovsrättsliga skyddet i Storbritannien, vilket garanterar upphovsmannen ett skydd för 70 år efter hans död, minskar till 25 år efter att verket satts på marknaden om det upphovsskyddade verket har massproducerats. Storbritanniens lagstiftning skiljer sig från regleringen i övriga Europa eftersom resterande länder inte har samma undantag för massproduktion. Under 2013 har den brittiska regeringen beslutat att upphäva sektion 52 för att harmonisera den upphovsrättsliga lagstiftningen med de europeiska direktiven. Denna uppsats kommer att analysera lagändringen av sektion 52 i Copyrights Designs and Patents Act och granska hur sektion 52 har förhållit sig till de harmoniserade... (More)
Sektion 52 i Copyright Designs and Patents Act innebär att det upphovsrättsliga skyddet i Storbritannien, vilket garanterar upphovsmannen ett skydd för 70 år efter hans död, minskar till 25 år efter att verket satts på marknaden om det upphovsskyddade verket har massproducerats. Storbritanniens lagstiftning skiljer sig från regleringen i övriga Europa eftersom resterande länder inte har samma undantag för massproduktion. Under 2013 har den brittiska regeringen beslutat att upphäva sektion 52 för att harmonisera den upphovsrättsliga lagstiftningen med de europeiska direktiven. Denna uppsats kommer att analysera lagändringen av sektion 52 i Copyrights Designs and Patents Act och granska hur sektion 52 har förhållit sig till de harmoniserade europeiska direktiven. Sektion 52 har påverkat bland annat designers och producenter, och de olika aktörerna på marknaden har skilda rättsliga ställningar till lagändringen vilka kommer att belysas i uppsatsen. Aktörernas rättsliga ställningar baseras främst på hur deras rättigheter påverkats av sektion 52. Undantaget i den brittiska lagstiftningen har inneburit en påtaglig nackdel för upphovsmän på den internationella marknaden eftersom design som varit skyddad i övriga europeiska länder inte varit skyddad inom Storbritannien. Brittiska företag har antingen importerat kopior från exempelvis Kina, eller producerat kopior i Storbritannien, och sedan distribuerat dessa runt om i Europa. På så sätt har företagen kunnat kringgå de skyddande lagarna i de övriga unionsländerna. Upphovsrättens skyddstid regleras i direktiv 2006/116/EG och innebär att ett upphovsrättsligt verk har ett skydd för 70 år efter upphovsmannens död. Direktivet hänvisar till Bernkonventionen för vissa grundläggande regleringar. Av Bernkonventionens artikel 2 regleras vilka verk som åtnjuter upphovsrättsligt skydd, men det framgår också av en underparagraf att det är upp till medlemslandet själv att bestämma skyddstiden för just brukskonst. Det är oklart huruvida det var meningen att inkludera hela artikel 2 i direktiv 2006/116/EG, det vill säga om undantaget för brukskonst ska gälla eller ej. (Less)
Abstract
The foundational copyright protection in the United Kingdom provides the creator with a protection of 70 years after the death of the creator. Section 52 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act reduces the copyright protec-tion, if the piece has been mass produced industrially, to a protection of 25 years after the product has been put on the market. The British government has during 2013 decided to repeal the section, to harmonize the British laws to the European. This essay is aiming to analyze section 52 and its repeal, and the analysis will be made with an international perspective to compare how the section has related to the international harmonized directives. The essay will also illustrate the various legal viewpoints that have... (More)
The foundational copyright protection in the United Kingdom provides the creator with a protection of 70 years after the death of the creator. Section 52 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act reduces the copyright protec-tion, if the piece has been mass produced industrially, to a protection of 25 years after the product has been put on the market. The British government has during 2013 decided to repeal the section, to harmonize the British laws to the European. This essay is aiming to analyze section 52 and its repeal, and the analysis will be made with an international perspective to compare how the section has related to the international harmonized directives. The essay will also illustrate the various legal viewpoints that have been high-lighted by the actors on the market regarding the legislative change. The exception in section 52 has meant a great disadvantage for creators on the international market whose rights have been violated by the British laws. Companies in the United Kingdom have either imported replicas from for-eign countries such as China, or produced replica products themselves. Be-cause of the freedom of movement in the European Union the companies have been able to distribute the replicas all over Europe. The copyright term protection is harmonized by directive 2006/116/EG and provides for a pro-tection of 70 years from the year of the creator’s death. The directive refers to the article 2 of the Berne convention, which describes what kind of crea-tions that are covered by the copyright protection. One of the subsections of the article states that the protection for applied art is to be decided by the state itself. It is a legal uncertainty whether directive 2006/116/EG was sup-posed to refer to the whole article with all its subsections or not. Depending on how to interpret the directive into the British law, it could be more or less consistent with the European directives. Either way the decision to repeal section 52 will mean a great advantage for the creators since the majority of the European countries have interpreted the directive 2006/116/EG as in-cluding works of applied art. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ivarsson, Sophie LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Protection of applied art in the United Kingdom - a change of legislation
course
JURM02 20132
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Förmögenhetsrätt, Immaterialrätt
language
Swedish
id
4227368
date added to LUP
2014-01-20 15:54:45
date last changed
2014-01-20 15:54:45
@misc{4227368,
  abstract     = {The foundational copyright protection in the United Kingdom provides the creator with a protection of 70 years after the death of the creator. Section 52 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act reduces the copyright protec-tion, if the piece has been mass produced industrially, to a protection of 25 years after the product has been put on the market. The British government has during 2013 decided to repeal the section, to harmonize the British laws to the European. This essay is aiming to analyze section 52 and its repeal, and the analysis will be made with an international perspective to compare how the section has related to the international harmonized directives. The essay will also illustrate the various legal viewpoints that have been high-lighted by the actors on the market regarding the legislative change. The exception in section 52 has meant a great disadvantage for creators on the international market whose rights have been violated by the British laws. Companies in the United Kingdom have either imported replicas from for-eign countries such as China, or produced replica products themselves. Be-cause of the freedom of movement in the European Union the companies have been able to distribute the replicas all over Europe. The copyright term protection is harmonized by directive 2006/116/EG and provides for a pro-tection of 70 years from the year of the creator’s death. The directive refers to the article 2 of the Berne convention, which describes what kind of crea-tions that are covered by the copyright protection. One of the subsections of the article states that the protection for applied art is to be decided by the state itself. It is a legal uncertainty whether directive 2006/116/EG was sup-posed to refer to the whole article with all its subsections or not. Depending on how to interpret the directive into the British law, it could be more or less consistent with the European directives. Either way the decision to repeal section 52 will mean a great advantage for the creators since the majority of the European countries have interpreted the directive 2006/116/EG as in-cluding works of applied art.},
  author       = {Ivarsson, Sophie},
  keyword      = {Förmögenhetsrätt,Immaterialrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Brukskonstskydd i Storbritannien - ett rättsområde under förändring},
  year         = {2013},
}