This is the essay I submitted for the NorthEastern Essay Competition with a few edits made
Arguably, Copyright Law is one of the most nitpicky areas of practice. It seems like every other week a new musician is having to defend their art against a court of justice, a concept that was totally abstract to most musicians about fifty years ago.Typically, Copyright occurs when an individual or a group create a work which can be seen as an interpretation of the primary creation, or even more brutally a replica. However, with the rise of the internet and various social media platforms, the prevalence of this issue has not only gained attraction online, but also in our quotidian legal system. Subsequently, it leaves many people wondering how capable the UK laws are in the face of AI and technology, and do they need to be reviewed to a greater extent?
Notably, the most recent case is with Ed Sheeran and the claims against him made by Kathryn Townsed - the daughter of the late Edward Townsend - of copying the infamous ‘Lets get it on’. Evidently, the trial captivated the interest of countless individuals around the globe, all of which debating amongst themselves; after all, did Ed Sheeran really copy the two musicians? Frankly, the judicial answer to this question was no. After three hours of tempestuous deliberation, the jury came to the conclusion that “Independent creation is a complete defence, no matter how similar that song is.” This clear-cut decision highlighted how a new creation from a new individual is substantial enough to go against copyright law. To the average person, this decision is obvious and conspicuous, however, The Copyright, Designs and Patterns Act of 1988 clearly states that the creator will also have the right to be identified as the author and to object to distortions of his work, one of the four moral rights of Copyright Law. Although, the key question remains, what exactly is a distortion of work?
As previously mentioned, the four moral rights of Copyright Law form the basis of the Act itself. There is the right of: paternity, integrity, false attribution and privacy of photographs, these all form the principle of law which is aimed at protecting respect and uniqueness of independent creative works. However, the moral rights are simply a guide on copyright and do not demonstrate how to impose Copyright Law on a day to day basis, that subjective decision is left mostly up to whichever Judge is assigned the case that day. Although Sheeran's infamous case was based in the US, there are many clear parallels we can draw between both the UK and US legal system. Moreover, Sheeran vs Townsend is a perfect synopsis of the dysfunction between the guide of the moral rights and the applicability of them in a situation based judicial system.
To summarise the two legal systems with regards to the Copyright sector, the UK states that work will become ‘ public domain’ when 70 calendar years since its producer’s death has passed. Whereas, the US expresses that work only becomes ‘public domain’ after a certain amount of time has passed since the publication of the piece of work itself. However a key difference between the two countries, is the fact that the UK extends Copyright to computer generated videos, pictures etc, whilst the US doesn't under any circumstances. Another, key difference is the fact that in the UK there are certain Copyright infringement exceptions such as for training purposes whilst in the US the law remains rigid and unwavering. Furthermore, the UK recently issued a new Copyright and database right exception which allows text and data mining. Moreover, right holders will not be able to charge for UK licences to TDM, and will not be able to have an opt-out exception. Clearly, this highlights how much more detailed and precise the UK system is in comparison to the USA legal sphere, this further highlights how much more up to date the UK laws are. However, is this a good thing or is this limiting creative expression on a wider scale and damaging the way we produce art in an unsolvable way?
From a statistical point of view, there are a plethora of reasons as to why Copyright law is pragmatic and useful. Most simply, it protects intellectual property, solely creators have the right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their creations. Moreover, this thus incentivises a financial gain from the creator as they draw the possibility to derive profit and aids with the administration of licensing and distribution. On the other hand, Copyright Law limits and reduces creativity and can cement monopolies in their respective industries, reducing the economic activities of smaller businesses. More relevantly, there is a certain ambiguity in what is ‘fair use’ and can leave for subjectivity in the law. With all these uncertainties, it is blatantly obvious that infringements are increasingly common, and even more so by celebrities.
Overall, Copyright Law does of course create many benefits, such as protecting the property of the creator and holds the creator’s best interests at heart. However, with the rise of technology and AI, placing rights of ownership becomes increasingly difficult. Although the UK system is more advanced than the rest of the world, the ambiguity that remains within the system obstructs a peaceful and robotic judicial sphere without the attraction of the media. Ideally, the UK should aim to review these laws, giving AI such as Bard and ChatGBT a greater thought, and a subsection too. By doing this, the laws of copyright would become clearer and - hopefully - less strict if Parliament were to decide that the rights of ownership were to be allocated to the individual using the AI, not the production company itself. Until then, more and more high profile cases are sure to rock tabloids such as the Daily Mail and The Sun, all of which could simply be avoided with more consideration and precision in what implicates ownership integrity and the distortion of it.
Written by Aurore Lebrun,
https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/uk_law_summary#:~:text=The%20Copyright%2C%20Designs%20and%20Patents%20Act%201988%2C%20is%20the%20current,their%20material%20may%20be%20used.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-107-6861?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20moral%20rights,work%20falsely%20attributed%20to%20you.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/advantages-disadvantages-copyright-bytescare#:~:text=It%20safeguards%20intellectual%20property%2C%20promotes,to%20entry%2C%20and%20enforcement%20complexities.
very insightful!
Sure you’ll win the competition with this very interesting essay; very well written
Super Essay!