The Gazette 1992

JUNE 1992

GAZETTE

draftsman took the view that Section 7 of the 1956 Act was too detailed and complex for the Irish context and that the matter was sufficiently covered by Section 12 (1) which allows for fair dealing with a literary dramatic or musical work for the purposes of research or private study or criticism or review. They did of course preserve Section 7 (6) as Section 12 (6) as indicated above as this was clearly regarded as important to include in the 1963 Act. I have to confess that as a practitioner in Ireland in the areas of copyright law I have not come across any great concern on the part of libraries and educational institutions in Ireland on the question of breaches of copyright arising from the photocopying of literary dramatic or musical works in their collections. Unlike the United Kingdom there is no system in place for the protection of literary works in this regard though I understand that efforts are now being made to establish a literary copyright collection society in Ireland which would be similar in its operation to the Irish Music Rights Organisation the local equivalent of the Performing Rights Society in the United Kingdom. What such a literary copyright collection society would do would be, of course, to charge libraries and other institutions where such photocopying of literary works went on, on the basis of a blanket annual fee to allow photocopying to be conducted of all works which the literary copyright collection society controlled without reference to the specific owners of that copyright. This would be in the same way that IMRO/PRS charge places of public resort for the use of so-called piped music as part of their service to customers.

Re: Review of Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, Gazette, March 1992

common to both the Irish 1963 Act and the UK 1956 Act (repealed). (See Whale, R.F. and Phillips, Jeremy J. Whale on copyright. 3rd. ed. Oxford: ESC Publishing, 1983, in support).

Dear Editor,

I wish to disagree with James Hickey who reviewed the 13th edition of Copinger and Skone James on Copyright in the March 1992 issue of the Gazette where he stated that "the law was very much the same in Ireland as in the UK" until the passage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988. I disagree also with his statement that "the only substantial difference between the Irish 1963 Act and the UK 1956 Act was that the Irish government declined to create a Performing Rights Tribunal". I shall confine my remarks to what is, in my view, a very important difference, from a librarian's viewpoint. Section 7 of the UK Copyright Act, 1956 (repealed) permitted special exceptions from infringement of copyright for libraries which were elaborated upon in the UK Copyright (Libraries) Regulations 1957 (S.I. 1957 No. 868) (revoked). The Irish Copyright Act 1963 does not grant any special exceptions to libraries other than in section 12 (6) as elucidated by the Copyright (Publication of Certain Works) Regulations 1964 (S.I. No. 180 of 1964). These regulations relate to unpublished manuscripts as specified therein and are, therefore, more the concern of the archivist. The uncertainty which the said omission causes in relation to the copying of works by libraries (photocopying, especially) in the Republic of Ireland means that these institutions need to pay particular attention to this matter when providing access to their collections

Yours faithfully, Hugh M. Fitzpatrick BCL, MLIS, (NUI), M.Phil. (Cantab.), Solicitor, Dip. Lib., ALAI, St. Edmunds College, Cambridge.

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your letter of the 2nd April 1992 enclosing a copy of letter dated 25th March 1992 from Mr. Hugh M. Fitzpatrick of St. Edmund's College, Cambridge. I do of course stand over my own views as to the only substantial difference between the Copyright Act, 1963 of the Republic of Ireland and the Copyright Act, 1956 of the United Kingdom, though taking Mr. Fitzpatrick's point into account, I think the word 'substantive' rather than 'substantial' might have made my point clearer. It is true to say that Section 7 of the UK Copyright Act, 1956 (with the exception of subsection (6)) was not reproduced in the Copyright Act, 1963. Following the different section numbering in the 1963 Act it should have fallen between Sections 12 and 13. It is interesting to note that Section 12 (6) of the 1963 Act does in fact reproduce the substance of Section 7 (6) of the 1956 Act and no equivalent of Section 12 (6) of the 1963 Act appears in the equivalent Section 6 of the 1956 Act.

notwithstanding the general exceptions to infringement concerning copyright material

What I believe happened in the 1963 Act was that the Irish parliamentary

159