Pre-empting conflict – a re-examination of the public interest defence in Uk copyright law

Legal Studies ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-102
Author(s):  
Jonathan Griffiths

It is over 10 years since the Court of Appeal confirmed the legitimacy of the public interest defence in copyright law in Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd. However, remarkably little is still known about the defence's function and scope. Indeed, acknowledgement of its unfathomability has become something of a commonplace of copyright jurisprudence and scholarship. This situation contrasts sharply with the position in other related areas of law, such as breach of confidence and defamation, in which courts have made dramatic strides in recasting doctrine to protect ‘public interest’ disclosures. Developments in EU copyright law have also plunged the defence into a renewed crisis of legitimacy. The time is therefore ripe for a reconsideration of the role of the public interest defence in UK copyright law. In this paper, an attempt is made to understand its implicit rationale and scope. It is argued that the existing jurisprudence reflects a persistent concern about copyright's potential to subvert policy outcomes generated by alternative regulatory systems and that the defence is to be viewed as a form of pre-emption doctrine, allowing courts to avoid the explicit rules established under the CDPA in circumstances in which their application would frustrate the outcomes of other more appropriate forms of regulation.

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Priyo Katon Prasetyo ◽  
Rosye Villanova Christine ◽  
Sudibyanung Sudibyanung

Abstract: Based on Law Number 2 of 2012 concerning Land Acquisition for Development in the Public Interest, the Openness Principle is one of the ten principles as the basis of the implementation of development. This principle is significant because its complex role can lead to conflicts and disputes. In this paper, discussions are divided into two parts: 1) how the implementation is expected to be applied according to the acquisition procedure in theory; and 2) the reality that occurs in the field. The first discussion was conducted by reviewing the applicable regulations and the methods or concepts of development of the openness principle. Meanwhile, the second discussion about the reality on the field was conducted by elaborating case studies regarding problems in land acquisition. The results of this study indicate that there are gaps in the implementation of the openness principle between theory and reality in regards of land scarcity, economic inequality, and information asymmetry among the involved parties. In conclusion, the implementation of the openness principle is significant with the role of information in land acquisition.Intisari: Berdasarkan Undang Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2012 tentang Pengadaan Tanah Bagi Pembangunan Untuk Kepentingan Umum, Asas Keterbukaan adalah salah satu dari sepuluh asas yang menjadi dasar pelaksanaannya. Asas ini menjadi signifikan karena perannya yang kompleks dapat menimbulkan konflik dan sengketa. Artikel ini akan membagi pembahasan menjadi dua bagian: pertama, bagaimana implementasi yang seharusnya diterapkan pada prosedur pengadaan secara harapan, dan kedua, membahas mengenai realita yang terjadi di lapangan. Secara harapan pembahasan dilakukan dengan melakukan library research atau studi terhadap peraturan yang berlaku dan metode-metode atau prinsip perkembangan dari asas keterbukaan. Realitas di lapangan akan dielaborasi dari studi kasus mengenai permasalahan dalam pengadaan tanah. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan ada gap dalam implementasi asas keterbukaan antara harapan dan realitas di lapangan yang bersumber dari kelangkaan sumber daya/tanah, ketimpangan ekonomi dan asimetri informasi di antara para pihak yang terlibat. Tulisan ini menyimpulkan bahwa implementasi asas keterbukaan signifikan dengan peran informasi dalam pengadaan tanah. 


2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark H. Taylor ◽  
F. Todd DeZoort ◽  
Edward Munn ◽  
Martha Wetterhall Thomas

This paper introduces an auditor reliability framework that repositions the role of auditor independence in the accounting profession. The framework is motivated in part by widespread confusion about independence and the auditing profession's continuing problems with managing independence and inspiring public confidence. We use philosophical, theoretical, and professional arguments to argue that the public interest will be best served by reprioritizing professional and ethical objectives to establish reliability in fact and appearance as the cornerstone of the profession, rather than relationship-based independence in fact and appearance. This revised framework requires three foundation elements to control subjectivity in auditors' judgments and decisions: independence, integrity, and expertise. Each element is a necessary but not sufficient condition for maximizing objectivity. Objectivity, in turn, is a necessary and sufficient condition for achieving and maintaining reliability in fact and appearance.


1992 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 618-623
Author(s):  
Stephen Smith

This article examines a recent decision of the English Court of Appeal. It concerned a psychiatrist who examined and reported on a convicted murderer in a secure hospital. The report was commissioned by the patient's solicitors as evidence in support of his release. The report was emphatically unfavourable and the doctor insisted that it be revealed to the hospital authorities. The solicitors refused and litigation ensued. The courts were forced to rule on the conflict between the patient's right to privacy and the public interest in revealing the report.


LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi

In view of the rapid pace of technological, scientific and medical innovations in India and abroad, the intellectual property rights i.e., copyright, patent and other neighboring rights, have been recognized in Indian and foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, its scope and content have expanded pursuant to statutory amendments over the years. Growing recognisiont, expansion and protection of IPRs needs to harmonised with the public interest. Within this backdrop, copyright law, patent law etc. have made elaborate provisions and endeavours have also been made at international level to strike a balance between protection of individual’s IPRS and social interest. The present article tries to examine the contours of protection of IPRS at national and international levels with special reference to copyright law.


2021 ◽  
pp. 125-194
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler

This chapter describes the role of the directors. The duties of the directors are owed to the company and while the shareholders are the primary indirect beneficiaries of those duties, the law integrates the interests of creditors and also of wider society. The law is primarily focused on ensuring compliance with the Companies Act and the constitution rather than with the enhancement of economic interests. The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 serves as a mechanism through which the public interest is integrated into company law, while the UK Corporate Governance Code adds a further procedural dimension to the operation of the board of directors. The chapter then looks at how the idea of designing remuneration in a way that guides the directors to act either for the benefit of the shareholder or for the benefit of the company is flawed and has served as a motor justifying increasing rewards without bringing about commensurate increases in performance. It also analyses the duties of the directors to keep accounting records and to produce financial reports.


Author(s):  
Sabine Jacques

This chapter examines the relationship between parody and an author’s moral rights. It first traces the evolution of the concept of moral rights as a means of providing protection not only of the authors’ personal interests but also the public interest before discussing the reasons why moral rights might conflict with parodies. It considers two competing theories underlying the protection of authorial interests—the ‘monist’ theory and the ‘dualist’ theory—and their implications for the parody exception. It also explains how jurisdictions differ in the nature and scope of protection afforded to moral rights, noting that the parody exception in ‘copyright’ law does not extend to moral rights. The chapter goes on to explore the author’s paternity and integrity rights as well as their right against false attribution. It shows that, in the case of parodies, an overlap exists between the regimes applied to moral and economic rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document