In particular, views are sought on the following issues:
Formalities: whether Singapore should have a voluntary system of copyright registration, and details associated with such a copyright registry [it is important to recall that the no formalities rule contained in Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention only applies in an international - not domestic - context].
First ownership: whether creators of certain commissioned works should have first ownership of the copyright in the works.
Duration: whether the duration of copyright protection for unpublished works should be limited to : (i) 70 years after the death of the creator for literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works, and (ii) 70 years after first publication for sound recordings, cinematograph films and works with an unknown creator if they are published within 50 years of creation, failing which, they will only be protected for 70 years after creation.
Moral rights: whether there should be a new right of attribution, and details associated with this right [the answer to this should be yes, at least to comply fully with Article 6-bis of the Berne Convention - Singapore joined the Berne Union in 1998].
Information: whether the relationship between creators and publishers/producers can be helped by an information website for creators.
Exceptions and contractual override: whether certain exceptions in the Copyright Act should be allowed to be restricted by contractual terms, and which exceptions would those be [UK-based readers will promptly recall that the exceptions introduced into the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act in 2014 - including parody, quotation and the now defunct private copying - prevent contractual override].
Fair dealing [Singapore introduced an open-ended exception akin to fair use, yet called fair dealing, in 2010: see s35 of the Copyright Act]: whether the fifth factor (from the exception of “fair use”), which relates to obtaining a copy of the work within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price ["the possibility of obtaining the work or adaptation within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price"], should be removed.
Orphan works: whether orphan works should be addressed by a limitation of remedies approach, a registry approach with upfront fees, or a modified registry approach with fees paid direct to the copyright owner.
Text and data mining [a specific exception for non-commercial exception was introduced into UK law in 2014, and is currently under discussion for introduction at the EU level]: whether there should be a new exception for copying of works for the purposes of data analysis to facilitate text and data mining.
|Billy has already started|
working on his responses,
though he has not been
too productive so far
Libraries and archives: whether the current exceptions for libraries and archives should be simplified and redrafted.
Museums and galleries: whether there should be new exceptions for museums and galleries.
Disabilities [again, in the UK context, the relevant exception was broadened in 2014; in this article, among other things, I had argued that the previous, limited, scope of the UK exception was contrary to EU law]: whether certain technical amendments should be made in relation to provisions benefiting those who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled.
IPOS: Whether there should be a new exception for use by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) of non-patent literature in patent search and examination work.
Government: whether there should be a new exception for materials on official government registers.
TPMs: whether the current list of allowable circumventions of technological protection measures (TPMs) should be retained, and what new allowable circumventions of technological protection measures should be put in place [this is not a minor point of the consultation: under review by the Singapore Government there is in fact (and among other things) the lawfulness of using VPNs to circumvent geo-blocks to access copyright content; the debate on VPNs is not limited to Singapore, but it is rather being undertaken in several countries, eg - recently - Australia].
Those interested in answering the public consultation can do so here, or by post to the following address:
Intellectual Property Policy Division
Ministry of Law
100 High Street
#08-02, The Treasury
[originally published on The IPKat on 24 August 2016]