Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1957

Vol. 163 No. 5

Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of the Bill is to amend our existing law relating to industrial property and copyright in order to bring our legislation into conformity with three international conventions. None of the amendments affects the basic principles of our law in these matters which is embodied in the Acts of 1927 and 1929.

The three conventions to be implemented are:—

(1) the revised Industrial Property Convention signed at London in 1934,

(2) the revised Berne Copyright Convention signed at Brussels in 1948, and

(3) the Universal Copyright Convention signed at Geneva in 1952.

The delay in implementing the London convention arose because it was considered at the time that a number of other amendments to our law concerning patents and trade marks might be necessary. Examination of this question was impeded by the war after which it became clear that the conventions relating to copyright were likely to be revised by later conventions. There were two subsequent conventions and it was considered that implementation of the three conventions would be conveniently embodied in a single statute for the purpose.

As regards the first convention the object of the international convention for the Protection of Industrial Property is to develop and unify the laws and practices of member countries in relation to the protection of industrial property and to secure the grant of reciprocal rights between member states. The convention was revised at the London Conference of 1934 which was attended by a delegation from this country. The convention is a worldwide organisation embracing some 43 member states. It is administrated by the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property, a body with headquarters in Berne, which is concerned with patents, trade marks and designs.

Under our existing law every application for a patent, except those made under the international convention, must contain the name of the true and first inventor but the true and first inventor is not mentioned in the patent. Section 2 of the Bill provides, in accordance with the revised convention, for the mention, on his request, of the name of the true and first inventor in the patent granted for an invention.

Section 4 extends to aircraft and land vehicles temporarily imported into the State the immunity from action for infringement of patent rights now enjoyed by certain foreign vessels in respect of inventions used in the machinery or appliances connected with the vessel.

Sections 5 and 6 relate to designs. It will be no longer necessary for an article to which a registered design is applied to bear a prescribed mark to denote that the design is registered; and the registration of a design will not in future be cancelled merely on the grounds that it is not being utilised industrially in this country.

Section 7 grants applicants for patents under the convention the same rights to a single patent for cognate inventions as are at present accorded to non-convention applications.

Many of the amendments required to implement the conventions involve mere changes in procedure or in the periods of time in which certain things are to be done. Examples of this kind of amendment are the provision to prevent abuse of monopoly rights in Section 3, the international arrangements connected with applications for patents, and for registration of designs or of trade marks in Section 7.

The subject of copyright is dealt with by two of the international conventions already mentioned. The first, the International Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, was revised in Brussels in 1948. This convention, which is commonly called the Berne Copyright Convention, provides for reciprocal rights between countries of the so-called Berne Union. The main principle laid down is that a work first published in any country which is a member of the union is accorded the same protection in each of the other countries of the union as if it were first published in each of these countries. The union embraces some 50 States throughout the world but does not include the United States or any of the countries of the Pan-American Union.

The second convention relating to copyright is the Universal Copyright Convention, which was the outcome of a world inter-governmental conference at Geneva in 1952 and was the culmination of action by U.N.E.S.C.O. begun in 1947. It marked the first occasion in which the United States and the other countries of the Pan-American Union entered into an agreement with the countries of the Berne Union in the matter of copyright. Because of the many interests covered by this convention the measure of agreement embodied in it is necessarily restricted to basic principles.

Fundamental changes are not necessary to bring our legislation into conformity with these two conventions.

Implementation of the Brussels revision of the Berne Convention is effected by Sections 9, 10 and 12 of the Bill. Section 156 of the 1927 Act provides that any time after the expiration of 25 years from the death of the author of a published work reproduction of the work is permitted, provided the publisher pays the copyright owner 10 per cent. royalties. This provision conflicts with the Brussels revision and its repeal is necessary in order to enable this country to accede to the convention. Section 9 of the Bill accordingly grants absolute protection for the full agreed term of copyright, i.e., the author's or artist's lifetime and 50 years after his death. In the case of works of joint authorship, Section 10 extends the period of copyright to 50 years after the death of the author who dies last in lieu of the existing provision of 50 years after the death of the author who dies first. Section 12 in effect extends copyright protection to all cinematographic works; and also alters the definition of "simultaneous publication" in the 1927 Act from within 14 days to within 30 days.

Sections 8, 11 and 13 of the Bill arise out of the Universal Copyright Convention. Section 8 provides that copyright in a protected work shall, as regards translation into the Irish language, cease to exist at the expiration of seven years from the first publication of the work instead of ten years as at present, unless the author has the work translated into Irish in the meantime. Section 11 enables the Government to protect by Order the work of a national of a contracting State first published in a non-contracting State. Section 13 provides protection for the unpublished and published works of the United Nations, its organs and specialised agencies, and the Organisation of American States, and empowers the Government to extend copyright protection to such other international organisations as they may think fit and specify by Order.

Implementation of the convention will not involve any additional costs of administration. I recommend the principle of the Bill for approval by the House.

This Bill was, of course, prepared by the outgoing Government. It is a necessary Bill for the purpose of confirming the convention to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred. The whole system of patent and copyright law is one which is extremely complicated and one into which I do not propose to delve this morning. The Parliamentary Secretary will, no doubt, be relieved to hear that I do not propose to cross-examine him on his knowledge of patent and copyright law for a variety of reasons, the principal being that I do not know sufficient about the subject myself to do so.

There are three points I should like to make and three questions I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer. What is the position here in relation to the protection of a patent or copyright against the State? Is the State in the some position as any ordinary private individual, if it infringes either copyright or the ordinary patent law in relation to mechanical inventions? Our situation here is, I think, somewhat different in that respect from the situation which obtains on the other side.

May I ask the Deputy to amplify that? Could he give us some examples of the type of situation he visualises?

Certainly. Suppose, for example, an author prepares a paper and does not publish it himself and the State subsequently decides, for its own purpose, to publish that paper, is the State bound to pay him the equivalent of a royalty for his authorship in respect of that paper? Suppose, for example, a private person makes a plan involving certain mechanical inventions and suppose that plan is submitted to the State for a purpose and not used by the State for the purpose submitted, is the State then entitled to utilise it without breach of patent or breach of copyright for other purposes? Or is the State in exactly the same position as any private individual?

As I understand the law, if the Parliamentary Secretary writes a pamphlet, even if it is a pamphlet extolling the virtues of Fianna Fáil, I am not entitled to utilise such a pamphlet or to reproduce it, though, in such circumstances, I could hardly see myself assisting in any such reproduction. If the Parliamentary Secretary writes an article on some aspect of fishing in Connemara and publishes that as a private pamphlet and sells it himself, is the State entitled to take that pamphlet and reproduce it or republish it without payment, or is the State in exactly the same situation as any ordinary private individual? I think the State is in the same position as a private individual, but I should like the situation confirmed.

On the other side of the water, I think the position is not the same. As I understand the law there, the State has absolute right to do what it wishes in that respect and is bound only to give a gratuity, which it does, equivalent to what would be the copyright. Here the position is different. I should like confirmation.

The other question I wanted the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with is the position of copyright in relation to broadcasting and television. Television has become a matter of some public controversy at the moment. What is the situation there in respect of reproduction? Is it covered by the copyright laws we have here? Is it covered by this Bill? What is the exact situation now?

Apart from that, in relation to ordinary broadcasting, what is the law? Is there a copyright in respect of it and, under these conventions, are we doing anything to enlarge its scope or to restrict the existing scope of copyright in respect of sound broadcasting problems?

Broadcasting itself is hardly a problem and when the 1927 parent Act was going through the Houses of the Oireachtas, certainly, television was not a problem then. Television now seems to be a matter that is coming to the fore and it would be as well if the position, in so far as these conventions and this Bill deal with either of these subjects, were clarified.

The position as sketched by Deputy Sweetman in relation to the practice in England may have had its origin in constitutional usage there, based on the principle that the King can do no wrong. We have not any such position here. We have a written Constitution and it is a matter of common knowledge that a Minister of State can be prosecuted for almost any act of tort. I do not know exactly what difference Deputy Sweetman wants to inject into the vindication of rights in respect of copyright as compared with ordinary actions of the kind which we see occasionally reported in the papers and which in fact find their way into our courts. In any case, the positive reply to the specific question which he has put to me is that, in fact, the individual has a right as against the State and his right is protected.

That is the simple answer to his question. I take it that that will also apply to any infringements of copyright which may be laid at the door of the television authority when we have such an authority in this country.

This Bill really implements the findings of two conventions, one of which was held as far back as 1934 and in respect to which, for various reasons, but principally because of the war, no legislative action was taken.

I am advised that further conventions will be necessary and that, arising out of the deliberations of these further conventions, additional legislation will be required to bring our copyright law and the laws for the protection of industrial property into consonance with present day conditions.

What is the situation in respect of the misuse of the arms of a corporation? Can they come in under this agreement? What happens very often is that souvenirs are made outside the country and come in here with the arms of a particular corporation on them. It could happen even in Galway. Will this agreement give us any protection against that sort of abuse for corporative bodies here as apart from private individuals?

Offhand, I should say— and I speak now subject to correction because the point raised by Deputy Sweetman has not been brought to my notice—that any copyright held by a corporation in this country can be defended under the provisions of these conventions.

Even when it is infringed outside the jurisdiction?

I think I ought to confine my remarks to its enforcement in the countries which have adhered to these conventions.

I do not wish to give an opinion as to what the position would be in non-contracting countries.

Is Japan a country that has adhered to the conventions?

There is a list of the adhering countries. I take it that copies of these conventions are to be had in the library. If the House will bear with me, I could read out a list. Does the Deputy wish to have a list of them read out?

It might be the handiest place to have them on the records of the House.

The Berne Union: Austria, Albania, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czechoslovakia, China, Denmark, Egypt, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, India, Iran, Italy, Israel, Iraq, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Liberia, Lebanon, Monaco, Morocco, Norway, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Philippines, Rumania, Spain, San Marino, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Jugo Slavia.

In relation to Pan-America, the first time that the countries of the Pan-American Union adhered is when this universal copyright convention, which I understand was the latest of the conventions, was held and they have adhered, I understand, in a more limited way. The countries of the Pan-American Union listed here are: U.S.A. Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Uruguay, Paraguay, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Salvador, Argentine.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Top
Share