"Artistic Craftsmanship" and its impact on Replica Industry
Discussion
In 2016 in the UK there was a repeal of section 52 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. In short, this meant that if an object could be described as "a work of artistic craftsmanship", then copyright could be extended from the previous 25 years to 70 years.
The 1988 Act was of course originally intended to cover genuine works of art, furniture, sculpture, photographs, paintings etc. If an artist was constrained in his artistic endeavour by considerations of functionality, then it was not intended that the objects should be considered to be "works of artistic craftsmanship". The artist needs to be given free reign to his creativity.
A race-car, of course, is almost entirely constrained by function and should not be considered a "work of artistic craftsmanship". However, a certain large car company rather cynically sought to gain a legal precedent in a "soft" jurisdiction (Sweden) against a "soft" target (a retired enthusiast). They surprisingly were successful in describing a race-car as a "work of artistic craftsmanship" - although the matter will be appealed in 2022 where hopefully common-sense will prevail and the ruling will be overturned.
Today's UK Intellectual Property Office review reported that "there were statements that these enforcement actions were having a devastating effect on the industry, particularly on small replica manufacturers, and putting thousands of UK jobs at risk." The review also confirmed that "the UK historic car sector has an aggregate turnover of £18.3 billion, supporting 113,000 employees. A separate analysis by CEBR for HERO-ERA in 2020 calculated that 11.3% of all jobs generated by the motor industry are in the historic and classic vehicle sector."
As admitted by the IPO today, "The effect on the replica car industry was not predicted by the original impact assessment". The IPO went on to say, "The IPO will consider whether guidance on works of artistic craftsmanship could help both users and rights holders in the future".
It is hoped that common sense will prevail here also and guidance will be issued that excludes objects such as cars from being described as "works of artistic craftsmanship".
Today's review by the IPO can be read here:
Post-implementation Review of the 2016 Repeal of section 52 Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 and associated amendments
https://tinyurl.com/yckvcw6s
The 1988 Act was of course originally intended to cover genuine works of art, furniture, sculpture, photographs, paintings etc. If an artist was constrained in his artistic endeavour by considerations of functionality, then it was not intended that the objects should be considered to be "works of artistic craftsmanship". The artist needs to be given free reign to his creativity.
A race-car, of course, is almost entirely constrained by function and should not be considered a "work of artistic craftsmanship". However, a certain large car company rather cynically sought to gain a legal precedent in a "soft" jurisdiction (Sweden) against a "soft" target (a retired enthusiast). They surprisingly were successful in describing a race-car as a "work of artistic craftsmanship" - although the matter will be appealed in 2022 where hopefully common-sense will prevail and the ruling will be overturned.
Today's UK Intellectual Property Office review reported that "there were statements that these enforcement actions were having a devastating effect on the industry, particularly on small replica manufacturers, and putting thousands of UK jobs at risk." The review also confirmed that "the UK historic car sector has an aggregate turnover of £18.3 billion, supporting 113,000 employees. A separate analysis by CEBR for HERO-ERA in 2020 calculated that 11.3% of all jobs generated by the motor industry are in the historic and classic vehicle sector."
As admitted by the IPO today, "The effect on the replica car industry was not predicted by the original impact assessment". The IPO went on to say, "The IPO will consider whether guidance on works of artistic craftsmanship could help both users and rights holders in the future".
It is hoped that common sense will prevail here also and guidance will be issued that excludes objects such as cars from being described as "works of artistic craftsmanship".
Today's review by the IPO can be read here:
Post-implementation Review of the 2016 Repeal of section 52 Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 and associated amendments
https://tinyurl.com/yckvcw6s
Edited by XJ13 on Thursday 23 December 12:01
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff