My Lords, in moving the lead regulations I will take the opportunity to speak to all three instruments before us today, which deal with exceptions to copyright.
In today’s digital world the process of copying is intrinsic to new technologies that are used by vast sections of our society, from researchers and curators to teachers and consumers. Yet under current UK copyright law a great many activities that are intuitively acceptable to any reasonably minded person are unlawful or at best uncertain simply because they involve some element of copying. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that copyright law achieves an appropriate balance between protecting the rights and interests of creators and serving the wider public interest.
These statutory instruments are part of a process that dates back to the publication of the Hargreaves review in May 2011—and in fact similar recommendations were made in 2006 by the Gowers review of copyright under the previous Administration.
I feel it is appropriate at this stage to comment that the Government are proposing two other statutory instruments: first, on personal copying for private use; and, secondly, on parody, caricature and pastiche and quotation.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has asked for some further points of clarification. It is not unusual for the committee to want to spend more time considering SIs but it does, unfortunately, have implications for the timetable for these exceptions, given where we are in the parliamentary cycle. While this delay is disappointing for the Government and many members of the public, the Government remain firmly committed to implementing each of these important exceptions to copyright law as soon as possible.
I turn to the three SIs before us today. One makes changes to the exceptions for research, education, libraries and archives. This instrument includes a new exception for text and data mining for non-commercial research. The other two instruments make changes for the benefit of disabled people and public administration. In most cases the instruments make small changes to existing exceptions—for example, by expanding the types of copyright works that the exceptions apply to or the types of institution or user that can benefit from them.
I am pleased to report that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the three instruments we have before us today and had no comments to report. This means that the committee has not identified any issues that it feels need to be brought to the attention of Parliament. Noble Lords will also be aware that my officials and I provided oral evidence to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 6 May, and the committee reported its views on 9 May. I welcome this consideration of the regulations, and I very much welcome the opportunity for further consideration today.
The potential benefits of these the SIs are significant. At a conservative estimate, based on the Government’s impact assessments, the measures in the three instruments are predicted to benefit the United Kingdom by nearly £250 million over 10 years. For the avoidance of doubt, the majority of uses of copyright materials will continue to require permission from copyright owners. The regulations have been carefully and narrowly drafted to contain safeguards that ensure they do not prejudice the legitimate interests of creators and rights holders. Indeed, many of the changes simply modernise existing exceptions that have been part of UK law for many years.
Over the past few years, the Government have consulted extensively on these proposals and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recently commended the Government on their “sustained efforts” to consult on these measures. There is no doubt that the Government found it enormously helpful to hear the full spectrum of viewpoints, including those of individual creators, businesses, researchers and consumers.
I turn first to the new copyright exception to permit UK researchers to use text and data-mining technologies as part of their research. Data-mining techniques allow researchers to analyse large amounts of text and data using computers. This is extremely efficient and makes it easier for researchers to make interconnections within the vast amount of data being produced in the digital age. This new exception for text and data mining contributes to the Government’s overall goal of making the UK one of the best places in the world to do science.
This measure is necessary because current copyright law does not allow us to realise all the potential benefits of text and data mining. This is because the technology usually requires copies to be made of the material that is being analysed, and making these copies risks infringing copyright. At the moment, only 11% of articles in the European database of biomedical research papers can be electronically analysed without seeking specific permission from the copyright owner. This is the case even where the researcher or their institution may have already paid for a licence to read these articles.
The evidence submitted to the Government’s consultations showed that requiring individual researchers to seek specific permission from each rights holder is a significant obstacle to the uptake of data mining. One case study found that a simple exercise to mine all papers with the term “malaria” in their title could require a researcher to spend between four and five weeks seeking permissions—time far better spent on actual research. The changes proposed will allow researchers to make copies of any material they already have the right to read, without obtaining additional permission from the rights holder. This will apply only to text and data mining as part of a non-commercial research project.
Researchers in the US and Japan already have this freedom to carry out text and data mining. This exception will give similar freedoms to British researchers, and give Britain greater competitive strength internationally. To ensure that researchers are fully able to benefit from the exception, the legislation makes contract terms that seek to prevent or restrict text and data mining for non-commercial research unenforceable. It is important to add, however, that it will not stop rights holders imposing controls on the way in which researchers can access material, such as reasonable limits on download speeds.
I turn now to other research elements of this same statutory instrument. The regulations will extend the existing fair-dealing research exception to cover all types of copyright works, not just literary and artistic works. Researchers will be permitted to carry out reasonable, limited copying for non-commercial research and private study, without permission from the copyright holder. The amount of copying that can occur is limited by fair dealing, which means that copying a whole work is extremely unlikely to be allowed. Institutions such as libraries and universities will also be able to offer access to copyright works on the premises at electronic terminals for research and private study. That will reduce costs and improve access.
4.30 pm
The instrument also modernises existing exceptions for education to allow schools, colleges and universities to make photocopies of copyright works. As is currently the case, the exceptions will continue to operate in tandem with licensing schemes. That means schools do not need to worry about accidentally infringing copyright if they have a licence, and they do not have to spend time and money checking whether a particular use is included in their licence.
Another change will permit copying of small amounts of material where necessary to illustrate and explain a point, so teachers and lecturers will be able to do things such as displaying web pages or images on interactive whiteboards and in presentations. That change will not remove the need for educational establishments to hold licences such as photocopying licences and broadcast recording licences. Taken together, these modernised exceptions help define basic copying permissions for providers of education, ensuring that education is not constrained by copyright law.
The instrument also contains regulations to make it easier for libraries, archives, museums and galleries to preserve their collections. It would remove unnecessary regulation that hinders the preservation of our cultural heritage. Preservation techniques will often involve copying a cultural work or artefact—for example, digitising a book to transfer it to a more durable medium. The current law allows preservation copying, but applies only to books, and can be used only by libraries and archives. If an archive needs to preserve a film, sound recording, photograph or other work it risks copyright infringement. If a museum or gallery needs to preserve any item from its collection, it also risks infringement. By removing those barriers to preservation, these changes could save up to £26 million per year for libraries, archives, museums and galleries from reduced administration and transaction costs.
I now turn to the second instrument before us today, which focuses on changes for the benefit of disabled people. The change will mean that if any type of copyright work is not available commercially in a format that can be accessed by a disabled person, an accessible copy can be made for them. The changes would mean that anyone who has an impairment that prevents them accessing copyright works would be able to benefit from the exception.
Finally, the third instrument before us today makes changes to the existing exception for public administration and will enable more public bodies proactively to share certain third-party copyright materials online. Most information held by public bodies is already available for public inspection. Some of that material will have been submitted by businesses or members of the public. Currently, copyright law prevents any of the material being published online. Instead, third-party material can only be issued to the public in paper format or viewed on the premises of public bodies. Allowing it to be made available online will reduce administrative burdens for public bodies and save the public money and time.
This is a package of reasonable and common-sense changes to copyright exceptions. It will deliver significant benefits to the UK. First, it updates copyright law in line with the digital age. Secondly, it supports research by enabling text and data mining. Thirdly, it updates exceptions for educational purposes so that they are suited to modern teaching technology and practices. Fourthly, it makes it easier for libraries and archives to preserve our cultural heritage. Finally, it allows a greater number of disabled people to have access to a greater range of copyright works.
The Government have committed to promoting a modern, robust and flexible framework for copyright. These reforms are an important part of that. I commend the instruments to the House.