technologylaw9

Learn more
  1. This essay will critically assess the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 in the online environment. This is largely handled by the ‘Intellectual Property Enterprise Court or the Chancery Division of the High Court. Legal cases have hit on a few twists and turns as this legislation has become outdated as a pre-internet application .
  2. In the 1990s’ internet users downloading files via early Peer-to-Peer networks such as Napster was a disaster for Government as it was financially impossible to control. This was bad for copyright owners. By attempting to bring to consideration the role of internet service providers as well as ‘hosting platforms’ it narrowed the gap a little and made thing a lot more clearer to control. In the early 2010’s-2020’s holders were unsatisfied at the way things were being dealt with as it constituted as when you notice an infringement you take it down, although this just seen it put back up minutes later. This is when ‘algorithmic prevention’ came into play. Major players avoided accountability and maintain advertisers, by including automated filtering content systems to detect and remove such as you-tube’s content ID and google. This era was called ‘private automation’. Then there came ‘the legislative pivot’ whereby the European Union created a new law to deal with the issue. Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2019) saw that content sharing service providers perform an ‘act of communication to the public’ that they were ‘primordially liable’ unless they make more effort to tackle the issues.
  3. The copyright Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 covers copyright in the UK. The previous Act – Act 1956 failed to be fit for purpose with the introduction of computers, the internet and recording technology. The software dilemma was due to the fact that judges could not define a code as written text in the era of 1970’s and 80’s. The Government amended this act with Copyright (computer software) Amendment Act 1985. Video games were an issue as defendants argued that a moving generated games which were produced live and interactively in a ‘stream’ they could not be considered ‘fixed film’ under the statutory text. Visual layouts were copied, structures of arcade layouts and mechanics. Section 9 (8) of the 1956 act failed in a number of high-profile infringements claims as ‘the non-expert case’ a three-dimensional object would not infringe a two-dimensional design drawing if the person could not notice. What should have been easily won piracy cases were lost, as per the same section in engineering
  4. firms and industrial designers fell victims to the ‘blueprint loophole as 3-dimensional part could be easily copied and judges were failing to see the issue .The famous case of British Leyland v. Armstrong (1986) saw the legislation fall in on itself altogether. Because the wording of the act was not sufficient, the House of Lords had to rule in favour of the pursuer and then create a law to contradict the ruling and stop the pursuer playing out the outcome. This led to the creation of the 1988 ActUnder the UK’s copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 liability in the online environment can constitute as a primary infringement, secondary infringement, or authorisation of copyright theft. People who generally use the internet are held accountable as per the strict liability rule for unauthorised digital actions, however platforms such as user -generated content (UGC) and Internet service providers are free from liability unless it is proven they had clear knowledge of infringing content which they failed to act upon. This is a strict liability civil wrong therefore, someone’s intent, state of mind or lack of knowledge cannot be a defence. It is irrelevant .Section 20 is the most common place for disputes. It covers digital transmission, transmissions like live streaming, hosting video/audio content, and peer-to-peer file sharing framing, hyperlinking. The act of sharing a link can be a bypass walls and reach audience for piracy. Precedent cases such as ITV Broadcasting v TVCatchup established that ‘re-transmitting’ television broadcasts over the internet constitutes a distinct “communication to the public” that requires separate authorisation. This is a landmark intellectual property case that saw a complete overhaul of copyright law for ‘digital streaming’ in the UK and Europe. As considered in the UK High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) 2011 and 2017, the case found that unauthorised live streaming of free-to-air television over the internet constitutes copyright infringement. Here the claimants were some of the largest broadcasters such as ITV, channel 4 and channel 5 who were taking action against TVCatchup Ltd who were allowing for these channels to be streamed for free through computers and smartphones. By allowing for it to be streamed they were found in infringement as it made no difference if it was through ‘different technical means’, this still required further consent through copyright legalisation . It was seen as a breach of copyright as it was irrelevant if the viewers had a tv license or not. This case is important as liability was covered in one of the first digital streaming cases.Secondary infringement implies that the person only had a ‘right to believe that the act was infringing. This is targeted at parties who are smaller platforms or actors who ‘facilitate infringement.
  5. Authorisation Section 16(2) Authorisation, if a party grants sanctions or countermeasures it can be liable for copyright infringement. Providing a P2P index site explicitly marketed for piracy constitutes unauthorised approval of copyright infringement. Joint liability can also be if they work with others to profit from illegal downloads.Under Section 97A of the CDPA, rights holders can apply for injunctions against Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can be held to account by applying for an injunction as a holder. Here they can be forced to block access to websites which are protected, such as websites that allow illegal streaming and hubs .Modern litigation increasingly tests the boundaries of secondary infringement and digital importation. English High Court has examined whether making generative AI models available in the UK constitutes importing an “infringing copy” of an original work under Sections 22 and 23 of the CDPA .Section 9(3) of the CDPA grants copyright to works generated entirely by computers without a human author, awarding ownership to the person who made the “arrangements necessary” for its creation however it can be challenged when these works are then used again as copyright infringement .In 2025 the case of Getty Images v Stability AI ruling is a major focal point for legal debates concerning AI-generated online content the court decide on a mixed ruling. As it dismissed Getty Images’ core copyright claims but upheld limited, historic trademark infringement regarding the reproduction of Getty watermarks. As Uk copyright law is based heavily on territory and this did not take place in the UK as servers were not found to be located, it could not be found to be an infringement, and Getty had to abandon its lawsuit of 12 million from photos to train another image generator .From the back of this Getty won part of the case as they proved ‘Narrowly’ that images were shown on the same ‘stable diffusion’. Claims regarding section 10 (3) were dismissed as well as the ‘passing off’ as they had already been wiped or cleared. The court failed to declare whether AI model constitutes as copyright infringement under UK law . The effectiveness of copyright law here is hard to achieve by way of producing evidence. However, it is thorough in what it demands in order to prove an infringement .Section 97A of the act means the high court can hand out injunctions against internet providers such as BT, Sky or Virgin Media if they have actual proof, they have knowledge
  6. that their sights are being used for copyright. Right holders sue in order to hold them to account without having to prove through a judgement and the sites are blocked. This is effective in holding them to account .LA Gear Inc v Hi-Tec Sports plc (2001) case defined “reason to believe” as the court ruled that you are liable having possession of the facts that would have a ‘reasonable person’ believe that there was an infringement. The case also set 14 days of leeway to actions to be taken or investigated before a legal action can be brought. Again in another secondary infringement case its proving the knowledge was there. AS seen in ZYX Music GmbH v King (1995) set in stone that an accused cannot argue ‘ignorance’ as a defence. They have a duty to check and investigate and if they hold a knowledge of piracy which are obvious to others then they are held accountable.
    ConclusionPerusing civil liability as seen in the case above of Getty Images v Stability AI ruling, it is hard to prove cases as they are caused out with territorial jurisdiction of the courts, which are expensive to peruse.
    Despite its failure to completely eradicate piracy, the threat of civil liability has been highly effective in reshaping the digital economy. The act provided enough modern legislation that brough the major internet service providers and made ‘civil liability’ as a deterrent for forcing companies to the negotiating table through copyright infringement.Therefore, copyright infringement is effective if you can provide the evidence. Measures are taken to protect infringement as per the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 which can adapt to modern online content as well as cases brought forward dealing with AI. In secondary infringement cases, knowledge has to be proven in order to hold account for copyright infringement. This is difficult when it is not recorded anywhere.Although legislation has come a long way, civil cases are most of a deterrent as it makes it easier when it is under ‘strict liability’ as they are guilty regardless of their intent, fault or negligence with a narrow defence.