Ireland IP & Technology Law Blog : Dublin Lawyers & Attorneys for Intellectual Property, Communications & Information Technology Law in Ireland, U.S. & England

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have been mulling over the review of Irish copyright law recently announced by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation Richard Bruton. This is a commendable initiative and it is reassuring to see that that it has been staffed by a review committee (chaired by Dr. Eoin O’Dell, a lecturer at Trinity College Dublin and blogger) with expertise in the copyright field.

The review is the first substantial assessment of Irish copyright laws since the adoption of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. The terms of reference state that the review is intended to focus on reforms aimed at promoting “innovation”. An examination of the US “fair use” doctrine is also to be undertaken. The end of June has been set as the deadline for receiving submissions.

Innovation and “fair use” are unquestionably worthy candidates for review, but there are a number of difficulties with the terms of reference that immediately spring to mind:-

• “Innovation” is a very broad concept that can mean different things to different people. For example, a creator of copyright works would regard strong copyright laws as important for promoting innovation, since they secure an increased incentive for him to engage in creative activity. In contrast, an individual that re-utilises copyright works would view strong copyright laws as inhibiting innovation. What perspective on “innovation” should the review committee adopt?

• The terms of reference do not extend to a review of other intellectual property laws that also have a direct impact on innovation. This contrasts with the recently published Hargreaves report in the UK, which covered patents and designs as well as copyright.

• A large part of copyright law now falls within the exclusive competence of the European Union. This means that the Irish government will have very limited scope to embark on its own initiatives. To be fair, the terms of reference recognise that the review committee may be able to do no more than recommend reforms for taking to the European table.

• The terms of reference give no indication as to the evidence base that the review group will be able to draw on. You would expect a serious reform agenda to be based on concrete evidence of difficulties with the current system. Will the review committee be given the resources to gather that evidence?

In spite of the above challenges facing the review committee, I believe that the consultation process will foster a lively debate on the role of copyright law in innovation-focussed economies such as our own.