Art and copyright: some current issues

Legal context IP lawyers are increasingly having to advise onart-related copyright matters. Current issues include the strongcopyright protection given to images, uncertainty in the protectiongiven to innovative contemporary art works, problems in applyingthe fair dealing exceptions to art works, and the increasingrelevance of other IP rights. Key points Image rights receive strong protection - photographsof public domain art works are protected in the basis of long-standingauthority (although there are arguments against such a view).Whether an artistic work is protected by copyright depends onwhether the work falls into the closed list of categories insection 4 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (painting,drawing, engraving, sculpture, etc). Much contemporary art doesnot fall neatly within these categories. Categorisation willalso be in issue as far as Artist's Resale Right is concerned.There is lack of understanding amongst internet artists aboutthe copyright restrictions that apply to digital works and concernsare raised more generally about the lawfulness of appropriationart. Practical significance Lawyers advising artists and those exploitingartistic works need to be aware of the potentially broad scopegiven in UK law to protecting works of art (including photographsof public domain works such as Old Master paintings) and tothe conflict between copyright and the practice of appropriationart. Where infringement claims are being considered fair dealingarguments and the possible impact of human rights law in guaranteeingfreedom of expression will need to be carefully considered.There has been little reported litigation on moral rights butthis aspect cannot be ignored. Trade mark rights, design lawand passing off may also need to be considered.     

Special report on patient care. The new federal patient-dumping regulations: some commonly asked questions and answers

Until both providers and government surveyors become more familiar with the new EMTALA regulations, there will be an uncomfortable period of adjustment, and perhaps some turmoil as well, particularly regarding the new requirement that facilities who receive suspicious transfers report those transfers to HCFA. Providers should carefully examine their internal policies on discharge and transfer of emergency patients to assure that those policies are consistent with the new regulations. Particular attention should be given to inservice training for medical and support personnel in the emergency department, because they must precisely comply with the law and their errors can subject the hospital to costly investigations and potential fines of $50,000 for each violation.     

Life imprisonment: recent issues in national and international law

This article notes that, because understandings of what life imprisonment means are often ambiguous, the life sentence is sometimes perceived to be relatively uncontroversial. Life imprisonment without the prospect of parole for children under the age of 18 years is the most extreme form of this sentence that can be imposed. However, in the United States of America even such sentences have only recently become the subject of public debate. In contrast, in a small but growing number of jurisdictions all life sentences are regarded as constitutionally suspect and contrary to human rights, whilst in the majority of jurisdictions the imposition of life imprisonment is strictly limited. The article traces recent developments in the imposition and implementation of life imprisonment that have evoked some controversy. It pays particular attention to attempts that have been made in practice to ensure that life imprisonment produces punishment that is proportionate to the crime. It points out, however, that a renewed focus on combating dangerous offenders through indeterminate preventive sentences has blunted even this modest safeguard. It warns that this tendency increases the risk of life imprisonment being an unfairly harsh penalty.     

The Marine Bill: An Overview and Some Thoughts

This paper examines the Marine and Coastal Access Bill as it was tabled on 8th December 2008. It explores the failure of the Bill to include marine protection of over 3,000,000 km² of the waters associated with overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It explains the necessity for close liaison with the European Commission and with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, where responsibility for marine governance is not clear cut. It expresses some disappointment in the failure of the Bill to cover questions of ownership of marine resources in particular the right to fish, which remains held under ancient and flawed common law rules. The paper then investigates the content of the Bill, looking at the role and functions of the Marine Management Organisation including licensing of fishing vessels, wind farm consenting/creation of safety zones, consents under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, research, advice, assistance, training, and prosecutions. The Bill also establishes a framework for marine planning with potential for the creation of marine plans and marine policy statements covering the waters of England and Wales to the edge of the UK Exclusive Economic Zone. Such plans and statements will have persuasive effects on the organisations involved in marine management, but will not be completely binding. The Bill creates powers to licence numerous activities and if necessary delegate licensing function to the bodies such as the Marine Management Organisation. It also established new powers for the creation of Marine Conservation Zones. The paper explores the narrow purposes for which these Marine Conservation Zones and created, and contrasts these unfavourably with the draft Scottish Marine Bill, which permits Marine Conservation Zones for such purposes as community interest. The paper also acknowledges that no target has been set for the creation of Marine Conservation Zones, and raises some concerns over whether Marine Conservation Zones contain severe enough penalties, particularly in respect of commercial fishing where there is a specific exemption for fisheries damage. The paper explores the function of the new Inshore Fisheries Authorities which will replace existing Sea Fisheries Committees, but raises concerns that the new organisations will still remain vulnerable to conflicts of interests because of their membership.