Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member printed question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

147352

	registered interest
	date	10/11/2014
	answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept id	26
	answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	hansard heading	Copyright
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their reasons for proposing an extended three-year transition period from April 2015 for the implementation of section 74 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, in the light of the current extent of counterfeiting.
	tabling member printed	Lord Clement-Jones
	uin	HL2756
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/11/2014 answer text The Government’s reasons for proposing a three-year transition period for implementing s74 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 are set out in its recent consultation which concluded on 27 October 2014 (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-provisions-for-the-repeal-of-section-52-of-the-cdpa). This does not represent an extended transition period but the Government’s provisional judgement as to the shortest reasonable period, taking into account the needs of both right owners and those using the current law to trade lawfully. The Government is considering the evidence it received and will make its decision on transitional provisions in the light of this. Current items made under the aegis of s52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 would not be considered counterfeits. Counterfeit products (i.e. goods which falsely carry the trade mark of a genuine brand without permission) are already subject to legal sanction under separate trade mark legislation. answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe question first answered 21/11/2014 13:06:54 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	3396 label Biography information for Lord Clement-Jones

386135

	registered interest
	date	29/06/2015
	answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept id	26
	answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	hansard heading	Copyright
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the draft own-initiative report of proposal to the European Parliament that commercial use of photographs or video footage, or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places, should always be subject to prior consent from the authors or any proxy acting for them.
	tabling member printed	Lord Stoddart of Swindon
	uin	HL934
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/07/2015 answer text <p>Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act (1988) permits the photographing and filming of certain artistic works and buildings permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public, without prior consent from the owners of copyright in those works. This exception to copyright protection has existed in UK law for over a hundred years, and represents an important freedom for photographers and film-makers, whether amateur or professional.</p><p> </p><p>The Government does not support any restriction to this exception, such as a requirement that prohibits commercial use without prior consent. The Government recognises the diversity of EU Member States’ laws in this area and strongly believes Member States should retain their current discretion in this area of law.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe question first answered 06/07/2015 10:52:24 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	950 label Biography information for Lord Stoddart of Swindon

387736

	registered interest
	date	06/07/2015
	answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept id	26
	answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	hansard heading	Copyright
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 6 July (HL934) concerning the proposal by the European Parliament for restrictions on photographs or video footage of public buildings, whether they have the power of veto over such draft legislation; and if so, whether they plan to use their veto in this instance.
	tabling member printed	Lord Stoddart of Swindon
	uin	HL1113
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/07/2015 answer text <p>On the 9<sup>th</sup> July, the EU Parliament considered a non-legislative own initiative report from the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) on EU copyright reform, and voted against proposals to restrict individuals’ freedom to photograph or film buildings or statues located in public places.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe question first answered 20/07/2015 12:23:08 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	950 label Biography information for Lord Stoddart of Swindon